Culturally Mindful Communication: Essential Skills for Public and Nonprofit Professionals 9780765644008, 9780765644015, 9781315277349

Citation preview

CULTURALLY MINDFUL COMMUNICATION

Intercultural communication is a necessary skill for those who work in the public and nonprofit sectors, and yet there is a dearth of literature available to help public and nonprofit professionals to effectively communicate, interact, and lead in a multicultural society. Drawing on research in intercultural communication, psychology, and public and nonprofit administration, Culturally Mindful Communication provides practical strategies for students and practitioners of public service to improve their intercultural communication skills. Topics include: 

Expectations for public and nonprofit professionals in today’s multicultural society



Frameworks to assess cultural differences and similarities



Verbal and nonverbal communication in intercultural contexts



Stereotyping, prejudice, ethnocentrism, microaggression, and social privilege as barriers to effective intercultural communication



Key considerations for effective multicultural teams



Approaches for effective multicultural community engagement



Leading with cultural mindfulness

Masami Nishishiba is Chair and Associate Professor in the Department of Public Administration, and Associate Director of the Center for Public Service at the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University.

This page intentionally left blank

CULTURALLY MINDFUL COMMUNICATION Essential Skills for Public and Nonprofit Professionals

Masami Nishishiba

First published 2018 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Taylor & Francis The right of Masami Nishishiba to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-7656-4400-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-7656-4401-5 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-27734-9 (ebk) Typeset in Stone Sans by Taylor & Francis Books

To my parents Akiko and Tetsuo Kawai For letting me be me

碧き眸の少女も引くや初みくじ New Year’s day, a girl with blue eyes asks her fortune to the Japanese god.

異国にて十年（ととせ）過ぎし娘（子）雲の峰 Summer clouds, Ten years in foreign land Floats by with my daughter. –

河合哲朗　　句 By Tetsuo Kawai (Translation by Masami Nishishiba)

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS

List of illustrations Acknowledgment About the author 1

Introduction: Why do public and nonprofit professionals need to be culturally mindful communicators?

viii xi xiii

1

2

Understanding cultural differences

12

3

Understanding the intercultural communication process

32

4

Verbal communication

50

5

Nonverbal communication

67

6

What hinders culturally mindful communication? Stereotyping, prejudice, and social privilege

104

7

Working in a multicultural team

127

8

Working with multicultural stakeholders in the community

151

Leading with culturally mindful communication

169

9

Index

190

vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures

1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3

viii

Breakdown of non-white American: 1960, 2010 Projected change in the US workforce demographics Illustration of individualism vs. collectivism Illustration of high vs. low power distance Key contrasts between high vs. low uncertainty avoidance Schematic illustration of the high- vs. low-context orientation Key contrasts between monochronic vs. polychronic time orientation Schematic illustration of intercultural communication process The intercultural communication process Differences in attribution between ingroup and outgroup for positive and negative outcomes Books (collections of printed pages bound together along one side) Hiroshima Memorial Cenotaph OK sign Bowing Handshake

5 7 20 23 24 25 27 35 37 43 52 59 70 70 71

List of illustrations

5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14a 5.14b 6.1 6.2

6.3

6.4 6.5 7.1 7.2 8.1 9.1 9.2 9.3

“Don’t know” “Stop!” “Be quiet” Japanese seal Turn-requesting signal Turn-yielding signal Turn-maintaining signal Back-channel signal Ritualistic touch – handshake Ritualistic touch – hug Physical appearance that is appropriate for a professional setting Physical appearance that is inappropriate for a professional setting Proportion of Mexican immigrants in different occupations Comparison of household income and personal earnings between Mexican, Asian, and all immigrants Proportion of Mexican, Asian, and other immigrants at different educational attainment levels World map commonly seen in Japan World map commonly seen in the United States Leo’s note Five conflict-handling styles T-Horse Process and components of culturally mindful communication Lavita’s analysis of her interaction with Marilyn Continuous improvement cycle for culturally mindful communication process

75 75 76 76 82 82 83 83 85 86 94 95 108

108

108 111 111 128 141 160 178 184 185

Boxes

2.1 2.2

Cultural moments: I’m just an intern Cultural moments: I thought I was monochronic

21 27

ix

List of illustrations

3.1 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 7.1 8.1 9.1

x

Cultural moments: Possible attribution bias? Cultural moments: I intended to compliment you! Cultural moments: Hiroshima Memorial Cenotaph Cultural moments: A dead-fish handshake Cultural moments: Cultural display rule Cultural moments: Uncomfortable holiday conversation Cultural moments: She had a strange accent Cultural moments: Conflict over deciding the conference paper presenter Cultural moments: Deciding the date for organizing the multicultural community forum Cultural moments: Fancy invitation card, or not?

44 53 59 72 80 113 118 143 158 181

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

It took me a long time to finish this book. Much longer than I initially anticipated, in part because of a couple of life events and health scares that I experienced right after I signed the book contract. I am grateful to many people who encouraged me and supported me in the process. Without their help, I could not have done this. I thank Harry Briggs, current president of Melvin & Leigh Publishers, who encouraged me to write this book when he was the executive editor at M.E. Sharpe. He guided and advised me during the early phases of the writing process. I also thank Brianna Ascher, Misha Kydd, and the production team at Routledge, who were so patient and understanding as I pushed back the deadline (after deadline after deadline). An unfathomable amount of thanks go to those who helped me in the development of this book. Dr. Terry Hammond, besides being my incredibly supportive significant other, spent countless hours doing substantive editing for the final draft of the manuscript. Xiaomei Wang reviewed the manuscript with her razor-sharp eye and formatted it to meet the specifications for submission. Sara Friedman, despite her huge workload as a first-year doctoral student, spent hours editing my first rough draft. Stephanie Hawke was always the go-to person when I needed help for research and more editing work. Special thanks also go to Kyoko Hosoe-Corn, whose illustrations added spirit to the characters in the communication challenge stories. Yuko Solbach, with her photography skills, mobilized my friends and captured all of the photographs used in this book. Josh Metzler, Naoko Horikawa, Saumya Kini, Nathan Solbach, and Ayako Matsubayashi bravely volunteered to be the models. I extend my gratitude to my colleagues, who supported this work by allowing me to carve out writing time. Thanks to Phil Keisling,

xi

Acknowledgment

the director of the Center for Public Service, and Sara Saltzberg, the assistant director, both of whom graciously let me ignore my associate director duties for the Center. Dr. Douglas Morgan protected me from all the departmental administrative work that I should have been picking up as the incoming department chair, and agreed to stay on for an extra term so I could finish this project. Most deeply, my thanks goes to my family. When I was six years old, my parents, Tetsuo and Akiko Kawai, packed up our home in Japan and moved my late brother Takeshi and I to Malaysia. We lived there for three years. The experience of living overseas as a child is at the core of my interest in intercultural interaction. I thank them for giving me such an incredible opportunity, and introducing me to the importance of understanding other cultures. Terry, my significant other and dearest friend, deserves another round of thanks. (With my high-context culture orientation, I do not thank him enough. So here you go.) And of course, my 18-year-old dog, Gonta. He might be the only one who directly benefited from me staying at home and writing this book. Part of his job was eating treats whenever I took a break from writing; he stepped up to the task beautifully. Finally, thanks to my teachers, students, and practitioner partners, who have taught me so much about public service and culturally mindful communication.

xii

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Masami Nishishiba is Chair and Associate Professor in the Department of Public Administration, and Associate Director of the Center for Public Service at the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University. With her background in communication studies and public administration, her research focuses on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues in public and nonprofit sectors. As a professional Japanese–English interpreter, she has served clients such as Bill Gates and President Jimmy Carter.

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

1 INTRODUCTION Why do public and nonprofit professionals need to be culturally mindful communicators?

Communication challenge Lavita’s case Lavita enjoyed the morning drive into work, especially in spring, when she could breathe in the fragrant morning air through her rolled-down window. The neighborhood where she worked in Westlawn was growing. A building under construction along the way was now complete, and a sign in Spanish said a Hispanic grocery store was opening soon. In response to the first, “How are you?” at work, Lavita exuded a little about the fine spring weather, and mentioned the new ethnic grocery store opening up the street. Lavita was paying attention. Her position as cultural inclusion coordinator at the City of Westlawn was created about a year ago to make the city’s operation more inclusive and equitable to all residents. She watched the demography. Westlawn had a population of 35,000, located on the outskirts of one of the major economic centers in the region. Historically it was a well-off lumber mill town, but those times faded rapidly just before the millennium. Instead, the city developed a hightech industry park a decade ago as a new economic hub, and an influx of high-tech companies brought new types of jobs and new types of people, many of them from other parts of the country or from overseas. Westlawn and the surrounding county also relied on long-rooted farming and orchard industries, which brought seasonal workers, especially during harvest. Many of the seasonal workers were Hispanic. Lavita herself was a second-generation Hispanic.1 Her parents came to

1

Introduction

the United States from Mexico when her mother entered medical school, and they stayed after she graduated. Lavita herself was born and raised in the United States. She eventually obtained a graduate degree in public affairs and policy, and worked a while as a researcher at the university – until she spotted the job ad for her current job at the City of Westlawn, when she decided to pursue her passion for community development and public service. Returning to her desk with her morning coffee, Lavita ran into Bob, the city manager, pretty much as expected. Bob liked to meet with his direct staff informally at least once a week, as if they just happened to bump into each other. Lavita appreciated his regular attention to her projects, and his genuine interest in her observations and ideas on cultural diversity and inclusion at the city. Early on, at Bob’s suggestion, Lavita began working with Emily, the human resources director, mostly on an initiative to recruit and hire more people with diverse cultural backgrounds. This was the topic on her mind as she took a seat at the round table in Bob’s office. Tension was appearing among some of the employees. Lavita shared the things she’d heard from employees who have been with the city, like: “These folks can’t even speak English.” “I can’t figure out whether they are nodding their head in agreement or shaking their head in disagreement.” “They are always late.” On the other side, a few of the recent hires from minority cultures approached her to express discomfort working at the city, due to a sense of animosity among the old-timers, and occasional comments with hostile undertones. It was obviously affecting their morale, and Lavita was concerned that the city would not be able to retain some of these recent hires unless something was done to make the work environment more inclusive. Bob looked momentarily disturbed. “We need to do something about this, Lavita. Similar attitudes may be affecting our services and the city’s reputation, too.” He told her of two encounters he had at a recent Chamber of Commerce meeting: one with a Hispanic business owner, the other with a sales manager at a high-tech company. One mentioned a rumor about a hostile environment at City Hall for minority employees; the other reported a complaint from a minority colleague who was treated in a disrespectful manner trying to get service at City Hall. “You and Emily, check this out, will you? And come up with a plan?”

2

Introduction

Leo’s case As a program officer for education programs at the Community Foundation, Leo was used to listening to presentations of ideas from grantees as well as colleagues around the office. As demographics in the local community changed, he noticed more projects addressed issues of social equity and inclusion. “Thanks for coming to share your project update,” Leo said cordially to David and Aasiya from NewResident Support, as he stood up from the table in the foundation’s conference room. “This was very helpful.” NewResident Support was a small nonprofit organization that provided assistance to immigrants. The organization had been in existence a couple of years, and succeeded partly through community grants. David was the founder and Aasiya was a long-time staff member. At the exit, Leo shook hands with David. Aasiya, a Somali woman in a headscarf, nodded. She did not make a move to shake hands with Leo, and he noticed from her body language that she did not intend to. He drew his hand back. Returning to his desk, Leo reflected on Aasiya’s reluctance to shake hands with him. Being a third-generation Japanese American, he remembered how his grandmother, a first‑generation Japanese immigrant, did not like shaking hands. She would shake hands hesitantly if she thought it would be rude or inappropriate not to, but she bowed at the same time. This experience helped him recognize Aasiya’s reluctance. “Cultural differences can be unexpected,” he cautioned himself. He grabbed a post-it note when he reached his desk, leaned over and wrote on it in bold strokes, and pressed it on the lower corner of his computer monitor. It read: “Be Mindful.”

Importance of culturally mindful communication skills for public and nonprofit administrators During the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, public and nonprofit organizations in the United States – and in many other parts of the world – started to acknowledge the importance of cultural diversity in the workforce and in communities. As Michael Dukakis, the former governor of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Democratic Party’s nominee for president of the United States in 1988, noted: In this day and age, leadership, particularly in the public sector, must include both a deep respect for and a real understanding of the extraordinary and growing range of cultures and

3

Introduction

backgrounds that increasingly confront an American politician or policy maker. (Dukakis, 2009, p. xi) The need to develop intercultural understanding and effective communication has long been recognized among public administrators and nonprofit professionals in international contexts. Workers in international relations, diplomacy, intelligence, social agencies, and the military deal with national and cultural differences on a daily basis. Other global concerns, such as disaster relief, human rights advocacy, and environmental conservation also employ people from different countries who need to know how to communicate effectively across cultures. Their work may require traveling and living in foreign countries. Being culturally mindful is important for these, and many other, public and nonprofit professionals. Dukakis was pointing out that the ability to function effectively in a diverse cultural context is becoming more important in a domestic context, too. Even in municipal governments or local nonprofit organizations, a variety of situations require attention to cultural diversity, as illustrated in the cases of Lavita and Leo introduced above. The following sections of this chapter discuss some of the background and reasons why it is important for public and nonprofit professionals to develop culturally mindful communication skills.

Cultural diversity in the community we serve According to demographers, from 1960 to 2010, the percentage of persons who identified themselves as nonwhite (i.e., black, Hispanic, Asian, or other) increased from 15 percent to 36 percent of the population. Specifically, those who identified themselves as black increased from 10 percent to 12 percent; Hispanic from 4 percent to 15 percent; Asian from 1 percent to 5 percent; and “other” from 0 percent to 3 percent. By 2060, these percentages are expected to increase. The foreign-born population is projected to grow to nearly 20 percent of the total population. With the Hispanic population rising to 31 percent, the once dominant white population will drop to only 43 percent, making race-based minorities a majority (Colby & Ortman, 2015; Taylor, 2014). The demographic changes illustrated above can be partially attributed to the forces of globalization. Globalization refers to the processes of international integration, and the increase in permeability of traditional territorial borders shaped by the interchange of both tangible and intangible factors, including goods, people, worldviews, ideas, and other aspects of culture (Choucri & Mistree, 2009). As the result of globalization, different countries, cultures, and organizations develop dense networks of interconnection and interdependency (Tomlinson, 1999).

4

Introduction FIGURE 1.1 Breakdown of non-white American: 1960, 2010

16

Percentage of Total Population

14 12 10

1960 2010

8 6 4 2 0 Black

Hispanic

Asian

Other

Race/Ethnicity

We have a long history of globalization, since humans started exploring and conquering new lands, trading goods, and spreading religions. The term globalization became popular in the 1970s (Osterhammel, 2005) as international networks expanded in both extent and intensity, in commerce and also in movements of people, ideas, and pollutants. Uneven growth and development within and across nations and regions has propelled cross-border movements that contributed to demographic and social transformations (Choucri & Mistree, 2009). Since the 1970s, elements of cultural diversity began to reach the awareness of public and nonprofit professionals serving local communities. Exposed differences in racial and ethnic backgrounds, and differences in sexual orientation, physical ability, and socioeconomic status accelerated, posing new challenges. The concept of social equity was explicitly stated as an important core value in public administration at the first Minnowbrook Conference, held in 1968 (Gooden, 2015). A widely used definition of social equity from the National Academy of Public Administration refers to it as: fair, just, and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract, and the fair, just, and equitable distribution of public services, and implementation of public policy, and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy. (Standing Panel on Social Equity in Governance, 2000) Svara and Brunet (2005) argue that social equity needs to include the following commitments from public and nonprofit organizations:

5

Introduction

(a) procedural fairness, including due process, equal protection, and equal rights; (b) distributional equity, referring to equal access to services and benefits; (c) process equity, including equal quality of services; and (d) outcome equity, addressing equal impact of policies. Cultural diversification in the communities we serve urges public and nonprofit professionals to develop communication skills with others of different backgrounds and cultural contexts to assure equitable service to all cultural groups, and more and more, work to heighten one’s own and the public’s awareness to be mindful of culture.

Changes in the workforce Changes in community demographics have important implications for the workforce. First, changes in the community will affect the composition of the workforce. Over ten years ago, Riccucci (2002) observed the following changes in the workforce demographic composition: 1.

Increases in the number of women

2.

Increases in the number of people of color

3.

Increases in the average age of workers

4.

Increases in the number of foreign-born or immigrant workers

5.

Increases in the number of contingent workers (e.g., part-timers, temporary workers)

More recent statistics confirm that the American workforce mirrors the changing demographic trends of the country and is undergoing dramatic changes as well. With a large portion of the white population aging and rapid growth of minority groups, the workforce is transforming to be more diverse. By 2020, the white workforce will drop to 63 percent from 84 percent in 1980, while minority workforce will double from 18 percent to 37 percent (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2005). In 2039, more than half of the working-age population will be minorities. Immigrants will occupy a large portion of the US workforce as immigration continues to contribute to changes. Among 820,000 immigrants who arrive annually in the United States, two out of three will be of working age upon their arrival (Department of Labor, 2016). Another distinct characteristic of the changing workforce is that it embraces increasing inclusion. In addition to the minorities, women, and people with disabilities, workers with non‑conventional identities also show increasing representation in workplaces. Although

6

Introduction FIGURE 1.2 Projected change in the US workforce demographics

90 80

Percentage of Workforce

70 60 50 White

40

Minority 30 20 10 0 1980

2020

2039 Year

complete federal information on workers’ sexual orientation and gender identity is lacking, the William Institutes at the University of California, Los Angeles made an estimate based on Census data that shows gay or transgender people make up over 6 percent of the workforce today. It estimates that a little over 1 million gay or transgender individuals work in the public sector, while approximately 7 million work in the private sector (Burns et al., 2012). Each sector of the workforce may diversify differently. Some argue that public-sector workforce composition does not mirror the community, and thus is not diverse enough. This raises the principle of representative bureaucracy, proposing that the workforce in public and nonprofit organizations should reflect the community it serves. This concept was introduced by Donald Kingsley in 1944. In this view, government bureaucracy that mirrors the demographic composition of the general public maintains legitimacy (Kingsley, 1944). Other scholars have articulated two ways to conceptualize the principle of representation: as passive and active (Meier & O’Toole, 2006; Mosher, 2003). Passive representation refers to a condition where the demographic composition of the public‑sector workforce mirrors the clients it serves. Community members may feel more comfortable and more willing to contribute to the success of public organizations where they feel alike. Active representation is a condition where the public workforce shares the characteristics of the client, and also actively represents interests related to those characteristics, responsive to all groups in services and policy processes. The principle of representative bureaucracy – both passive and active – suggests reasons to diversify the demographic make-up of a public-sector organization as the community becomes more diverse. The principle was endorsed in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, calling for a public workforce reflective of the nation’s diversity (Kellough, 1992).

7

Introduction

Other legal imperatives contributed in changing the composition of public-sector organizations in the United States. Principles have become compliance issues. Under the general umbrella of the Equal Employment Opportunity policy (EEO), an extensive body of federal laws requires public organizations to examine employment practices to ensure discrimination is not occurring in regard to various groups based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. These laws include the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and 1991; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2001). Initially, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) covered only private entities with 25 or more employees. The EEO Act of 1972 extended the Title VII coverage to state, local, and federal entities (Gutman, 2000).

Need for intercultural communication skills With increasing demographic changes in the community and the workplace, public and nonprofit professionals need to be competent and effective in a diverse social environment. Misattribution and miscommunication due to differences in cultural norms and assumptions can lead to dysfunctional relationships and can affect work outcomes. The 2009 accreditation standards for the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) required graduate programs for public affairs and administration to adopt a set of five competencies, including “the ability to communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry.” Consequently, many public affairs and administration graduate programs are incorporating courses that address issues of diversity and cultural competence into their curricula. The main goal of this book is to help public and nonprofit professionals to develop skills to effectively communicate, interact, and lead in a multicultural society. This book builds on the idea emphasized by cognitive therapists and social psychologists that being “mindful” of our own communication behavior is the core aspect of being an effective communicator. In a context designed for public and nonprofit professionals, the book will help readers understand and develop skills to become “culturally mindful” communicators and leaders.

Overview of this book This book aims to facilitate a better understanding of the theories and concepts relevant to culturally mindful communication and its practical applications in the public and nonprofit sectors. By using

8

Introduction

stories to illustrate intercultural communication challenges, this book highlights situations where culturally mindful communication is important. Mini-case illustrations of cultural moments that provide a variety of realistic examples are included throughout the text, allowing readers to reflect on the importance of culturally mindful communication skills in their own workplace. This book employs the following unique features: 1.

Intercultural communication challenges: Each chapter starts with illustrations of intercultural communication challenges in the public and nonprofit sectors using stories of fictional characters, Lavita and Leo. As you read at the beginning of this chapter, Lavita is a cultural inclusion coordinator at the City of Westlawn. Leo is a program officer at the Community Foundation. The stories of Lavita and Leo will illustrate key topics addressed in each chapter.

2.

Cultural moments: Each chapter includes one or two “call outs,” or mini-case stories that present different intercultural communication incidents. Each case story comes with discussion questions.

3.

Questions for discussion and written assignments: Each chapter includes a set of questions for small-group discussions and written assignments. These questions are designed to build on the intercultural communication challenges of Lavita and Leo, and the cultural moments.

Chapter summary This chapter provided reasons why public and nonprofit professionals need to be culturally mindful communicators. First, the demographics of the communities we serve are changing. Second, the demographics of our organizations are changing. In order to provide effective services in the face of these changes, it is imperative that public and nonprofit professionals become skilled in communicating across various cultures in a mindful manner.

Questions for discussion and written assignments 1.

Imagine that you are a public administrator for your city. When and where might you be confronted by national and cultural differences on a daily basis in your work? How about if you are the administrator of a nonprofit organization in your town?

9

Introduction

2.

Choose a public or nonprofit organization of interest to you and describe the nature of representation at that organization. Is the representation passive, active, or both? How do you know? Evaluate whether the organization could improve its level of representation and give examples of how this might occur.

3.

“The ability to communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry” is an important competency that requires regular practice and maintenance to keep up with the dynamic nature of cultural change. Brainstorm effective ideas for developing and maintaining this competency throughout your career.

Key words active representation demographic changes globalization

passive representation representative bureaucracy social equity

Note 1 Hispanic refers to an ethnic group whose heritage is in countries where people speak Spanish. Latinos/Latinas refer to those whose heritage or countries of origin are in Latin American countries. There is some overlap, but they are not the same. Hispanic excludes nearly 200 million Brazilians who speak Portuguese, and are accurately labeled as Latinos/Latinas. Hispanic includes nearly 50 million Spaniards (population of Spain), who are not called Latinos/Latinas. Among Latinos/Latinas, those whose heritage or country of origin is Mexico are called as Chicanos/Chicanas. Although it is important to recognize the differences among these terms, in this book the term Hispanic refers to the minority group in the USA whose heritage language is Spanish and countries of origin are in Latin America. Lavita, in a strict sense is a Chicana. Throughout this book her ethnicity is described as Hispanic.

References Burns, C., Barton, K., & Kerby, S. (2012) The state of diversity in today’s workforce. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/the-state-of-di versity-in-todays-workforce/. Choucri, N., & Mistree, D. (2009) Globalization, migration, and new challenges to governance. Current History, 108: 173–179. Colby, S.L., & Ortman, J.M. (2015) Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. Retrieved from www.census.gov/con tent/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf. Department of Labor. (2016) The U.S. population is becoming larger and more diverse. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/herman/ reports/futurework/report/chapter1/main.htm.

10

Introduction

Dukakis, M.S. (2009) Introductory commentary: Valuing the diversity of a nation. In M.A. Moodian (ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence (pp. xi–xii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gooden, S.T. (2015) PARs social equity footprint. Public Administration Review, 75(3): 372–381. Gutman, A. (2000) EEO law and personnel practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kellough, J.E. (1992) Affirmative Action in government employment. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 523(1): 117–130. Kingsley, J.D. (1944) Representative bureaucracy: An interpretation of the British Civil Service. Yellow Springs, OH: The Antioch Press. Meier, K.J., & O’Toole, L.J. (2006) Bureaucracy in a democratic state: A governance perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mosher, F.C. (2003) Democracy and the public service. In J. Dolan & D.H. Rosenbloom (eds), Representative bureaucracy: Classic readings and continuing controversies (pp. 19–22). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2005) Fact #1: The US workforce is becoming more diverse. Retrieved from www.highereduca tion.org/reports/pa_decline/decline-f1.shtml. Osterhammel, J., & Petersson, N.P. (2005) Globalization: A short history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Riccucci, N. (2002) Managing diversity in public sector workforces. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Standing Panel on Social Equity in Governance. (2000, October) Social equity in governance. Retrieved from www.napawash.org/fellows/sta nding-panels/social-equity-in-governance.html. Svara, J.H., & Brunet, J.R. (2005) Social equity is a pillar of public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(3): 253–258. Taylor, P. (2014) The next America: Boomers, millennials, and the looming generational showdown. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/next-am erica/#Americas-Racial-Tapestry-Is-Changing. Tomlinson, J. (1999) Globalization and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

11

2 UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

Communication challenge Lavita’s case “Hi Lavita. I have some things here I think you will want to see.” Emily, the human resources (HR) director, looked up and smiled as Lavita entered her office. She had a small stack of papers in front of her. That morning Lavita raised concerns to Bob, the city manager, about culture-based tensions between old-timers and newer employees, and he suggested she work with Emily to come up with a plan to address the issues. “Remember this issue with performance evaluations we looked into?” Emily passed a page to Lavita across the small table. “This is the memo written up by one of the HR staff. I sent you this when it first came out. We noticed some of the newer employees of Hispanic and Asian backgrounds were not doing well in their performance evaluations, and we found a pattern when we talked to them. Several said they didn’t feel comfortable highlighting accomplishments as their own individual accomplishments in their self-assessments, and that made it look like they were not contributing. Other team members sometimes took credit for the work. They were not satisfied that their work was not recognized by their supervisors, but they did not feel comfortable speaking up.” Lavita remembered the memo. As a second-generation Mexican American, she could relate to the reactions of the Hispanic and Asian employees. The performance issue made her think of her own household growing up, with her parents instilling the importance of being a good team

12

Understanding cultural differences

player, to share credit, and respect those with authority and power. Her father was the final decisionmaker. At school, Lavita competed with boys as her equals with her parents’ encouragement, but she also sensed her mother’s profound deference toward her father. Lavita remembered she adopted this kind of deference toward her professors in graduate school. “I think there’s something cultural about this,” Lavita said, “but I think we decided we need more information.” “Just so. See if this helps.” Emily passed more pages across the table. “Many of our part-time workers in the Roads and Transportation, and Parks departments are Hispanics, as you know. Some managers and supervisors are frustrated, because these part-time workers do not seem to care about work schedules, from being late to missing deadlines. I think there’s something cultural about this, too.” Lavita looked over the manager reports. Again, she could see exactly how this played out. As a child, she was frequently late for school or events, mainly because her parents did not seem to worry too much about being “on time.” If a relative called right before her parents were taking her to school, or a neighbor stopped to chat on their way to her soccer game, that moment took priority. Lavita had a few scenes with her parents when she was frustrated that her parents could not say, “Can we call you back? We have to take Lavita to school,” or “We are sorry but we have to take off, so we won’t be late for her game.” She received the lecture, more than once, about the importance of taking time for friends and family. Her parents told her the clock should not dictate her life. “You are right,” Lavita responded. “These incidents add up. We seem to have some cultural differences in norms and behaviors, in several departments, that may be causing some dysfunction.” “Bob said he wants a plan.” Lavita recalled the additional items Bob mentioned to her that morning: a rumor in the community of a hostile work environment at the city for minority employees, and a client complaint; plus her own item related to friction between older and newer employees. She concluded a bigger plan was better. “I think we need an all-staff training on how cultural differences affect our day-to-day operations, both internally and with the public.” Emily smiled and started writing. “All ready for you. I cleared some staff time to work on the calendar and budget for whatever you want.” Lavita laughed. “Good, I want my friend, Keiko. She consults on cultural diversity and communications, and has a training program already set up. We went to grad school together, and I think she is very good.” “Sure,” Emily nodded. “We can look at our options.”

13

Understanding cultural differences

What is culture? Scholars have explored the concept of culture for many decades, leading to a literature at least two centuries old. In 1952, Kroeber and Kluckhohn identified over 160 different definitions of the term culture. More definitions have been added since. Yet no comprehensive definition of culture is agreed upon (Gudykunst, 2003; Maude, 2011). A recent definition by Ting-Toomey and Chung gives us the key elements: Culture is a learned system of meaning that consists of a set of takenfor-granted assumptions, traditions, beliefs, values, norms and symbols that are passed on from one generation to the next and are shared to varying degrees by interacting members of a community. (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2012, p. 16) The elements here are commonly seen in other definitions of culture: (a) a system of meaning, (b) learned, (c) shared by members of a community, and (d) passed on over generations.

Culture is a system of meaning Culture helps “make sense” of experience in our everyday lives. A system of meaning incorporated by individuals to understand reality and share in social life is known as subjective culture (Triandis, 1972). Meanings define objects and how they are understood and used, and define people and their roles and relations. Based on those meanings, culture creates sets of implicit theories and recipes, held in common by the members of the society, giving coherence among those who share experiences. Observing this widespread array of cultural meanings intersecting with every individual in a society, anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) adopted a web metaphor: The concept of culture I espouse … is essentially a semiotic one. Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs … (Geertz, 1973, p. 5) The notion of semiotic webs adds a dimension to the meaning of culture, indicating a correspondence between subjective culture in the minds of individuals, and objective culture, including all the physical words, tools, gestures, and trappings that carry the meanings between individuals. The web looks and feels real, because it captures what is inside people’s minds and what people see outside, too.

14

Understanding cultural differences

Culture is learned A person learns about the world from the first breath to the end of life. In the beginning, while one’s brain learns to breathe, and see, and grasp, it also experiences words and gestures from those around that begin to give the world shape. Meanings and assumptions one attaches to experiences along the way typically become so taken-forgranted that they melt into the fabric of the way things are. The process of learning and acquiring cultural meanings – including values and norms, behaviors, languages, and tools of various descriptions that work in the culture one is born into – is referred to as enculturation. A slightly different learning and socialization process takes place when two or more cultures are involved; learning aspects of a culture other than one’s own is referred to as acculturation (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2012). The processes of learning culture can take place at a conscious or unconscious level (Hoebel & Frost, 1976). An individual may acquire meanings without quite knowing it through exposure to models, seeing how things are done in actual practice by other people, or in stories of practice (Gee, 1992). Sometimes the meanings are explicit, even enforced in community standards, while other model behaviors may simply define and assume the way things are without question. The models we portray in behavior, and in the stories we tell about behavior, reinforce particular cultural norms, values, and beliefs. Think about the implications of the following three sayings prevalent in different cultures. “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” (United States) “The nail that sticks out gets hit on the head.” (Japan) “The loudest duck gets shot.” (China) We may also learn about culture as a thing in itself, aided by perspective, observing multiple cultures and comparing them. Amateur folklorists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries gradually became the etymologists, anthropologists, and other social scientists of today, giving us a long literature to explore the components, processes, and transmission of culture as a complex web of our own design.

15

Understanding cultural differences

Culture is shared by a group of people Culture as a system of meaning is shared by a group of people. When we talk about mainstream US, Japanese, or African American culture, we are describing different systems of meaning people share by virtue of their country, ethnicity, or some other identifier of the community, or more likely, communities plural, where they belong. Here we come to a new idea. Culture is not only a system of meanings, with particular concepts, values, and practices, as we have described so far, but also a system of boundaries containing people in a shared universe and a collective social life. The cultural unit can be larger than a country or as small as a dyad, two people together, depending on what aspects of shared meaning become salient in a given context. Cultural boundaries can vary according to the associations they encompass and individuals they draw into their orbit. Such fluid boundaries are in part confined by how people identify themselves as a distinctive group, naturally by language, often by political designations, or by religion, art, or other diverse areas of interest, all with the common denominator that the culture, whatever the particulars, is a source of identity for individuals within the group.

Culture is passed on from generation to generation Systems of meaning shared by members of a community generally persist for many years, through generations, flowing along a variety of formal and informal channels (Brislin, 1993). Proverbs, myths, stories, music, dance, and visual art are some of the means people use to share culture across generations. Younger generations learn culture from parents, teachers at school, elders in the community, and more than ever from mass media. In addition, Liswood (2010) describes a potent carrier of culture as a “grandma” figure, something like a totem: an agent sharing lessons about life and perspectives of others and self that may be deeply internalized, perhaps mythologized, drawn from many sources, and hard to shake off. Wedding ceremonies, coming-of-age celebrations, funerals – these rituals and ceremonies highlight the meaning and value of family and life among the members of the community, and also, inevitably invoke the voice of ancient authority on such weighty social affairs. Even at the organizational level, rituals and ceremonies are sometimes used to maintain and promote a specific culture in the organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Here, too, in smaller instances, we may wonder what grandmotherly authority and artifacts will assist the local culture to sink in so it is hard to shake off, and manage to persist over generations. The fact that culture is passed on from generation to generation does not mean that culture is static. On the contrary, culture is

16

Understanding cultural differences

subject to change and is adaptive. Samovar, Porter, and McDaniel (2012) note that cultures do not exist in a vacuum, and explain that culture keeps changing because it is like a river into which other waters continuously flow from various tributaries. Changes in culture are studied, documented, and theorized by numerous scholars (e.g., Nehring et al., 2014; Roselaar, 2015). Also, researchers recognize differences in meanings, values, norms, and preferences across different generational groups (Falk & Falk, 2005; Taylor, 2014), indicating that cultures change, and “grandma” may look a little different (as grandmas do) from one generation to the next (Liswood, 2010).

Ways to assess cultural differences and similarities The first step for successful navigation and working effectively with members of diverse cultural groups for public and nonprofit professionals is to assess how cultures may be different or similar. One of the ways to assess cultural differences and similarities is to apply “dimensions of cultural variability” (Gudykunst, 2004, p. 44) to a situation. There are a number of dimensions of cultural variability that scholars have identified and advocate. For example, Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) note that national cultures can be assessed in six dimensions: 

individualism vs. collectivism



high vs. low power distance



high vs. low uncertainty avoidance



masculinity vs. femininity



long- vs. short-term orientation



indulgence vs. restraint

In communication style, Hall (1966, 1989) applies two dimensions: 

high- vs. low-context orientation



monochronic vs. polychronic

Meyer (2014) uses eight dimensions to differentiate cultures in the way they communicate, evaluate, persuade, lead, decide, trust, disagree, and schedule. Other applications may be found for different purposes. Here, we highlight a combination of the bullet points listed above:

17

Understanding cultural differences



individualism vs. collectivism



high vs. low power distance



high vs. low uncertainty avoidance



high- vs. low-context orientation



monochronic vs. polychronic

Individualism vs. collectivism The individualism vs. collectivism cultural dimension refers to cultural variability in respect to the roles of individuals versus groups. Individualism is defined as a cultural preference for individuals to be more independent from the social group to which they belong, and where individuals are primarily motivated by their own preferences, needs, and rights. Individuals in an individualistic culture give priority to their personal goals over the goals of the collective. Collectivism is defined as a cultural preference to see individuals as part of one or more social groups, and where individuals are motivated by the norms and duties imposed by the social groups to which they belong. Collectivists give priority to the goals of the collective over individual goals (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Triandis, 1995). In an individualistic culture, an individual’s selfimage is defined more in terms of “I” as an independent self, whereas in a collectivistic culture, the self-image of individuals is defined more in terms of “we,” interdependent with the group to which they belong (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Recall how Hispanic and Asian employees avoided highlighting individual accomplishments in their performance evaluations in Lavita’s story. Hofstede et al. (2010) scored nations along this individualism vs. collectivism dimension, and ranked Western countries such as the United States, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, Hungary, and the Netherlands as being highly oriented toward individualism. On the other hand, South American countries, such as Guatemala, Ecuador, Panama, Venezuela, and Colombia, as well as Asian countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, China, the Philippines, and Japan were more oriented toward collectivism. The individualism vs. collectivism dimension is considered to be the most widely used cultural variability dimension to explain cultural differences in behaviors and attitudes across cultures (Gudykunst, 2004; Triandis, 2004). For example, Saad, Cleveland, and Ho (2015) examined the effect of the individualism vs. collectivism cultural orientation on creativity by comparing Canadian college students who scored high on the individualistic end of the spectrum with

18

Understanding cultural differences

Taiwanese college students who scored high on the collectivistic end of the spectrum. Their results indicate that when the students engaged in an idea-generation task, both in individual and group contexts, Canadian students excelled in generating a higher quantity of ideas, expressed higher confidence in their own creative abilities, and showed higher propensity to voice disagreement in the group context. However, Taiwanese students scored higher in the quality of the ideas assessed. The fact that the designated collectivists in this experiment generated a lower quantity of ideas, but of higher quality, may be the result of a tendency for collectivists to exercise greater caution in contributing ideas, or an individualist tendency to focus on doing, while a collectivist tends to value thinking before doing (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Other explanations may be relevant, related to maintaining harmony within a group, apprehension of criticism, or ideals of excelling or deliberation (Saad et al., 2015). The specific factors involved are less important at this point than the main finding in the experiment that effective differences occurred. In another study, Nishishiba and Ritchie (2000) examined how the concept of trustworthiness among co-workers differs between Japanese and US professionals. Their results indicate that Japanese professionals emphasized organizational commitment in judging another’s trustworthiness, while US professionals emphasized personal integrity. These differences are consistent with the collectivist orientation in Japan toward “membership in, and relationship to, the organization” (p. 361), and the individualist orientation in the United States toward “personal qualities, as expressed in action within the organization but independent of any particular organization” (p. 361). Social modernization is a driving force for cultural change, involving population growth, higher exposure to mass media, increased urbanization, and adoption of urban lifestyles. Interestingly, indicators of modernization, such as gross domestic product (GDP), are known to correlate highly with Hofstede’s measure of individualism (Hofstede, 2001), and this has led some researchers to examine whether cultures that are collectivistic become more individualistic in their course of modernization. For example, Greenfield (2015) observed a shift from a traditional, community‑oriented, collectivistic orientation to a more urban individualistic orientation around the world, even in small communities. Hamamura (2012) examined shifts in individualist and collectivist orientations in the United States and Japan by analyzing longitudinal data, with results indicating a rise in individualism in both countries. This suggests that societies will become more individualistic as they modernize. Yet, Hamamura’s research also showed signs of persistence of collectivism in Japan, and areas where individualism declined, presenting a curious mixture of cultures, both persistent and dynamic.

19

Understanding cultural differences FIGURE 2.1 Illustration of individualism vs. collectivism

Individuals  Emphasis on an individual

Collectivistic  Emphasis on the group

High vs. low power distance The power distance dimension describes cultural variability based on which individuals in the culture subscribe to the idea of equal or unequal power distribution in personal relationships, organizations, institutions, and society in general. Power distance is a psychological attribute recognized and accepted between those on the one side who are deemed to have more power versus those who are deemed to have less power. Cultures can be placed on a continuum of high versus low power distance. Members of cultures with high power distance tend to accept power and authority as facts of life. Both consciously and unconsciously, the assumption operates that people are not equal and everyone has a right place in the social hierarchy. The use of honorifics when engaging in conversation with someone who has more power is common in high power distance cultures. Members of cultures with low power distance, on the other hand, adhere to the principle that power should be distributed, rewards should be equitable based on performance, and inequality should be minimized (Hofstede et al., 2010). In low power distance cultures, it is common for individuals to drop honorifics in conversation, and the use of first names is considered comfortable most of the time. Scoring nations on the power distance dimension, countries with high power distance included Malaysia, Guatemala, Panama, the Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela, India, and Arab countries. Countries with low power distance included Austria, Israel, Denmark, New Zealand, Ireland, Sweden, and Norway (Hofstede et al., 2010) (see Box 2.1).

20

Understanding cultural differences

Box 2.1 Cultural moments: I’m just an intern In India, the professional environment is generally very formal with a high level of hierarchy. Growing up in India, I have been socialized to approach things in a formal manner. My first professional experience in the USA was working in an organization as an intern. One of the projects that was first assigned to me required a few high-ranking members of the organization to write portions of a project report. I knew these people were very busy, holding important positions at the top of the hierarchy in the organization. I anticipated that they would not be able to deliver the project until almost the end of the deadline. As the deadline approached, I hadn’t heard anything from these higher “important” people. I was starting to get anxious. I was hesitant to follow up and remind them of the deadline because I felt like I needed to respect the hierarchy and formality. After all, I was just an intern. I didn’t want to come across as rude and pushy. My supervisor noticed that I had not followed up with these “important” people. She told me that if I did not follow up, no one would take me seriously and consequently nothing would get done. She said that most of the organizations in the USA do not let hierarchy become an obstacle. She advised me to change my approach and focus on the task, instead of the hierarchy. She emphasized that it was okay to be direct, as long as I acted cordially and professionally. (Ghandali, MPA student; adapted from a class online posting)

The United States on this power-distance scale scored 40 out of 100 points, suggesting the power distance in the United States is lower than average, though not so low in comparison to other Western countries. This mid-point score for the United States reflects some mixed orientations in the power distance dimension. On one hand, the United States espouses egalitarian values embodied in the core phrase “liberty and justice for all” as expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance, and in similar stirring phrases extracted from founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Clearly, ideals expressed in language, recorded, remembered, and repeated, can help shape our shared reality over generations. Alongside these sanctified ideals in the country’s mission, however, the United States also has a history of institutionalized slavery and forced labor. Ethnic minorities, immigrants, and women have been systematically discriminated against and denied equal rights throughout the country’s history, which indicates that the United States has also embraced higher power distance (Takaki, 1993; Zinn, 2003). One side of this mixed orientation in power distance is observed in US political rhetoric. For example, a preference for lower power

21

Understanding cultural differences

distance can be observed in political campaigns. Bonikowski and Gidron (2015) describe the prevalence of anti‑establishment rhetoric in US presidential campaign speeches by candidates from 1952 to 1996. They found that the candidates, especially those challenging incumbents, presented themselves as populists who were more in touch with the interests and the needs of the general public, emphasizing that they will maintain low power distance with the people even after being elected as president. On the other hand, the United States has the largest sustained wealth inequality among developed nations (OECD, 2015). Wealth refers to the value of all the assets an individual owns, such as house, car, savings, and retirement accounts, minus debt. Wealth is self-perpetuating in that the value may increase over time, and it offers security and privilege that can last for generations (Merino, 2015). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report, in the United States, the wealthiest 10 percent of households owned 76 percent of the total wealth of the country. This ratio is much higher than other OECD countries. Further analysis indicates the wealthiest 1 percent of the US population owned about 35 percent of net wealth, while the least wealthy 40 percent of the population owned nothing (Wolff, 2002). Considering how wealth can be translated into power in society, the existence of huge wealth disparities indicates a culture with high power distance. These facts and examples indicate that the United States is mixed in orientation on the power distance scale.

High vs. low uncertainty avoidance The uncertainty avoidance dimension describes cultural variability based on individual comfort with uncertain, unstructured, or unpredictable situations, and the extent to which individuals take actions to avoid such situations. This scale is useful to assess how willing individuals may be to take risks (Hofstede et al., 2010). Members of cultures with high uncertainty avoidance prefer having structure and clear procedures and rules to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity. Behaviors that are considered to be high-risk, confrontational, and deviant from the norm are not welcomed. An unknown or uncertain situation may cause nervous stress and anxiety. Members of cultures with low uncertainty avoidance tend to dislike rigid structure, procedures, and rules, and individuals in these cultures do not mind facing uncertainty and ambiguity in dayto-day life. Initiative and risk-taking are prized. Deviant behavior or ideas are not viewed as a threat (Hofstede et al., 2010). Scoring nations on the uncertainty avoidance dimension, countries with high uncertainty avoidance included Greece, Portugal, Guatemala, Uruguay, Belgium, El Salvador, and Japan. Countries with low

22

Understanding cultural differences

Large Power Distance  More psychological distance between top and bottom

Small Power Distance

FIGURE 2.2 Illustration of high vs. low power distance

 Less psychological distance between top and bottom

Psychological distance

uncertainty avoidance included Singapore, Jamaica, Denmark, Sweden, Hong Kong, Ireland, the UK, and the United States (Hofstede et al., 2010). Cultural variability in uncertainty avoidance has broad implications for how people operate in an organization and in society. For example, managers from high uncertainty avoidance cultures have been found to be less likely to adopt a persuasive approach, use logical arguments with factual evidence, or seek input and encourage others to participate in a task (Fu et al., 2004). These strategies are effective when the managers are willing to change the procedure mid-course and challenge the way of doing new things. In high uncertainty avoidance cultures, managers are less willing to take risks and adapt to new situations. Rather, they rely on processes that are typically highly structured, with clear procedures and rules, so people can confidently predict the outcomes of their tasks. In contrast, low uncertainty avoidance cultures, such as Australia and the United States, are more likely to favor flexibility, with less structure and fewer rules. Consequently managers in these cultures are found to prefer using persuasive strategies, and view them as effective. They may feel more confident to pursue novel ideas or arrangements (Fu et al., 2004; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992). Uncertainty avoidance is also a factor in how people react to fair or unfair treatment within an organization. Employees in high uncertainty avoidance cultures have been found to show a greater degree of commitment to supervisors and the organization when they perceive they are treated fairly (Shao et al., 2013). When employees perceive they are being treated fairly, it reduces uncertainty about the trustworthiness of the organization and supervisors, and this helps alleviate the discomfort that comes with uncertainty (Elovainio et al., 2005; van den Bos & Miedema, 2000). It is likely that people in high uncertainty

23

Understanding cultural differences

avoidance cultures react more strongly to fair treatment because they have a higher need to reduce uncertainty and anxiety than those in low uncertainty avoidance cultures do. In other studies, the level of uncertainty avoidance was associated with whether people perceive a given situation as an opportunity or a threat. For individuals from high uncertainty avoidance cultures, lack of control was perceived as a threat, and the presence of control an opportunity (Barr & Glynn, 2004). Some scholars claim that the need for control and tendency to avoid risk in high uncertainty avoidance cultures may make them less innovative. The organizational maverick who pushes innovations even at the risk of breaking rules and standards is shunned. In low uncertainty avoidance cultures, risk-taking innovation champions are given greater legitimacy (Shane, 1995). FIGURE 2.3 Key contrasts between high vs. low uncertainty avoidance

24

High Uncertainty Avoidance  Feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity.  Want to control the future.  Maintain rigid codes of belief and behavior.  Intolerant of unorthodox behavior and ideas.

Low Uncertainty Avoidance  Willing to accept uncertainty and ambiguity.  Just let it happen.  Maintain more relaxed attitude.  Practice counts more than principles.

Understanding cultural differences

High- vs. low-context orientation Anthropologist Edward T. Hall offers another dimension of cultural variability, based on the context of communicating meaning. Hall (1989) saw that “one of the functions of culture is to provide a highly selective screen between man and the outside world. In its many forms, culture therefore designates what we pay attention to and what we ignore” (p. 85). Different cultures pay attention to information in different ways, and notice the meanings embedded in the context of the interaction to varying degrees. A high-context orientation culture believes “most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message” (Hall, 1989, p. 91). In other words, the high-context culture locates meaning more in the context of a situation and nonverbal cues, rather than the explicit content of social interaction. A low-context orientation culture assumes “the mass of information is vested in the explicit code” (Hall, 1989, p. 91). In other words, the verbal message conveys most of the meaning; very little meaning is embedded. Understanding requires little interpretation of the context or nonverbal cues. Figure 2.4 illustrates the distinction between high-context and low‑context orientations. A different degree of attention to context influences how communication occurs. Hall (1989) observed that high-context cultures pay more attention to the distinction between insiders and outsiders in a conversation. When the interaction is among insiders, there is an expectation that others will understand the context and background without comment. People from high-context cultures tend not to state what they have in mind in a direct manner. As Hall described it: High Context Orientation

Low Context Orientation

Reliance on Context

FIGURE 2.4 Schematic illustration of the high- vs. low-context orientation

Information/ Meaning

Reliance on Verbal Message

25

Understanding cultural differences

A high-context individual expects his interlocutor to know what’s bothering him, so that he doesn’t have to be specific. The result is that he will talk around and around the point, in effect putting all the pieces in place except the crucial one. Placing it properly – this keystone – is the role of his interlocutor. (Hall, 1989, p. 113) This dynamic is recognizable in Japan, known to be a high-context culture, where the ability to communicate by reading the air is considered an important social skill. A person that has a hard time reading a situation, body language, or indirect hints is seen as lacking common sense, and deemed socially awkward and incompetent. (Spacey, 2015) Communication in low-context cultures, such as the United States and other Western countries, tends be more direct and explicit. Individuals in these cultures are encouraged to leave no room for ambiguity, rather to speak up, state what is on their mind, and to get to the point without beating around the bush.

Monochronic vs. polychronic Hall proposed another useful dimension of cultural variability, based on the perception and use of time. He noted that people use time like a “silent language” (Hall, 1959). The types anchoring each end of this time-oriented continuum, he called monochronic and polychronic (Hall, 1983). Cultures that are more monochronic (M-time) view time as a commodity, something that can be gained, lost, spent, wasted, or saved. Time is linear, with one thing happening after another in a sequential manner. Individuals in these cultures value punctuality, completing tasks on schedule, and meeting deadlines. Cultures that are more polychronic (P-time) have a more holistic concept of time, where several things can happen at once. Time priorities favor interaction and relationships with people, rather than schedules and completing tasks on time (Hall, 1983). Recall how Lavita’s parents made a point to communicate with neighbors even when they had other commitments. Sorting out the spectrum of characteristics in this dimension is not straightforward. Hall (1983) originally categorized US and some European cultures as more monochronic-oriented. Subsequent researchers suggested that US workers who embraced multitasking – by eating lunch while simultaneously talking on the phone and checking emails, for example – fit better into a polychronic orientation, or somewhere midway between the polychronic and monochronic orientations (Brislin & Kim, 2003; Kaufman et al., 1991). If multitasking is

26

Understanding cultural differences

Monochronic

Polychronic

 View time is linear, segmented, and manageable.  Do one thing at a time.  Take time commitments (e.g. deadlines, schedules) seriously.  Adhere to plans.  Emphasize promptness.

 Deal with time holistically.  Value activity occurring at the moment.  Do many things at once.  Consider time commitments and objective to be achieved, if possible.  Committed to people and human relationships.  Change plans often and easily.  Base promptness on the relationships.

FIGURE 2.5 Key contrasts between monochronic vs. polychronic time orientation

Box 2.2 Cultural moments: I thought I was monochronic I grew up in the USA, and have always struggled with getting to places on time. I tend to run late, plus when I’m with someone I don’t want to cut conversations short to get to another place on time. When I was moving to Bolivia, I was looking forward to living in a place that was more polychronic, and thought I would feel great in that environment. But after living there for a while I realized that I really had internalized a lot of monochronic approaches to time. An extremely polychronic approach to time, like the approach that many people had in my town in eastern Bolivia, actually caused me stress. I found it hard to know what to expect from my day. I could not tell if an event or a meeting would end on time, or drag on for hours and hours. I could not anticipate when an event would actually start. I struggled continually, having to just sit and chat with the people around me, instead of focusing on the tasks we had to do. It was a learning experience for me to realize that though I often ran late at home, that didn’t necessarily mean that I didn’t value parts of monochronic cultures. I had a lot to learn about polychronic cultures and what can be valuable there as well. (Cadie, MPA student; adapted from a class online posting)

27

Understanding cultural differences

eliminating the clock from the equation, then some cultural shift might be occurring. However, the important difference remains that the multitasking monochronic culture remains more focused on the task than the relationship (see Box 2.2).

Chapter summary 

Culture is a system of meaning shared by a given group of people.



Culture is learned through experience and through sharing from one generation to another, but culture is also dynamic and ever-changing.



Several theories exist regarding how to assess various aspects, or dimensions, of culture.



The dimensions discussed in this chapter include individualism and collectivism, power distance, high and low uncertainty avoidance, high- and low-context cultures, and monochronic and polychronic time orientations.



Understanding general expectations of each dimension can be helpful in cross-cultural contexts, because the dimensions help individuals analyze unfamiliar actions through a common framework.

Questions for discussion and written assignments

28

1.

Review the definition of culture and the characteristics of culture. Come up with a metaphor or a visual image that captures different aspects of culture.

2.

Consider various friends and family members whom you have known for some time. What are their time orientations in relation to your own? Discuss how interactions with a friend or family member who has a different time orientation from yours can be stressful.

3.

Culture is passed on from generation to generation. Think of a couple of cultural elements passed on to you from your parent or grandparent. Do you think these elements are an important component of your cultural identity? Why?

4.

The same cultural aspects can have different meanings among different generations. List three cultural aspects where you and

Understanding cultural differences

your generation have different interpretations from the older (or younger) generation. Can you list reasons for those cultural changes? 5.

There are several concepts introduced in this chapter: individualism vs. collectivism, high vs. low power distance, high vs. low uncertainty avoidance, high- vs. low-context orientation, and monochronic vs. polychronic. Choose two concepts with which you can identify and explain why. Have you ever experienced any cultural conflicts caused by differences along these cultural dimensions? Any reflections?

Key words acculturation collectivism enculturation high-context orientation individualism

low-context orientation monochronic (M-time) polychronic (P-time) power distance uncertainty avoidance

References Banks, S.P. (2000) Multicultural public relations: A social-interpretive approach. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Barr, P.S., & Glynn, M.A. (2004) Cultural variations in strategic issue interpretation: Relating cultural uncertainty avoidance to controllability in discriminating threat and opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1): 59–67. doi:10.1002/smj.361. Bonikowski, B., & Gidron, N. (2015) The populist style in American politics: Presidential campaign discourse, 1952–1996. Social Forces, 94(2). doi: 10.1093/sf/sov120. Brislin, R.W. (1993) Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Brislin, R.W., & Kim, E.S. (2003) Cultural diversity in people’s understanding and uses of time. Applied Psychology, 52(3): 363–382. doi:10.1111/14640597.00140. Deal, T.E., & Kennedy, A.A. (1982) Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Elovainio, M., van den Bos, K., Linna, A., Kivimäki, M., Ala-Mursula, L., Pentti, J., & Vahtera, J. (2005) Combined effects of uncertainty and organizational justice on employee health: Testing the uncertainty management model of fairness judgments among Finnish public sector employees. Social Science & Medicine, 61(12): 2501–2512. doi:10.1016/j. socscimed.2005.04.046. Falk, G., & Falk, U.A. (2005) Youth culture and the generation gap. New York: Algora. Fu, J.K., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M.H., Peng, T.K., Srinivas, E.S., … Cheosakul, A. (2004) The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on

29

Understanding cultural differences

the perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: A meso approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4): 284–305. Retrieved from www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/stable/3875132. Gee, J.P. (1992) The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York: Bergin & Garvey. Geertz, C. (1973) The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Greenfield, P.M. (2015) Special section: Social change, cultural evolution and human development. International Journal of Psychology, 50(1): 4–5. Gudykunst, W.B. (2003) Cross-cultural and intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gudykunst, W.B. (2004) Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (4th ed., Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hall, E.T. (1959) The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Hall, E.T. (1966) The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Hall, E.T. (1983) The dance of life: The other dimension of time. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Hall, E.T. (1989) Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books. Hamamura, T. (2012) Are cultures becoming individualistic? A cross-temporal comparison of individualism – collectivism in the United States and Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1): 3–24. doi:10.1177/1088 868311411587. Hoebel, E.A., & Frost, E.L. (1976) Cultural and social anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G.H. (2001) Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G.H., & Hofstede, G.J. (2005) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Kaufman, C.F., Lane, P.M., & Lindquist, J.D. (1991) Exploring more than 24 hours a day: A preliminary investigation of polychronic time use. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3): 392–401. Kroeber, A.L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952) Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Cambridge, MA: The Museum. Liswood, L.A. (2010) The loudest duck: Moving beyond diversity while embracing differences to achieve success at work. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2): 224–253. Maude, B. (2011) Managing cross-cultural communication: Principles and practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Merino, N.L. (2015) The wealth divide. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press. Meyer, E. (2014) The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. New York: PublicAffairs. Nehring, D., Esteinou, R., & Alvarado, E. (eds). (2014) Intimacies and cultural change: Perspectives on contemporary Mexico. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. Nishishiba, M., & Ritchie, L.D. (2000) The concept of trustworthiness: A cross cultural comparison between Japanese and US business people. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(4): 347–367.

30

Understanding cultural differences

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015) In it together: Why less inequality benefits all. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235120-en. Parnes, A., & Easley, J. (2016) Clinton, liberals pile on Sanders over “establishment” remarks. The Hill, January 22. Retrieved from http://the hill.com/homenews/campaign/266657-clinton-liberal-groups-gang-up-on-sa nders-over-establishment-remarks. Roselaar, S.T. (2015) Processes of cultural change and integration in the Roman world. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Saad, G., Cleveland, M., & Ho, L. (2015). Individualism – collectivism and the quantity versus quality dimensions of individual and group creative performance. Journal of Business Research, 68(3): 578–586. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.004. Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E., & McDaniel, E.R. (2012) Communication between cultures (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Schmidt, S.M., & Yeh, R.S. (1992) The structure of leader influence: A crossnational comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(2): 251–264. doi:10.1177/0022022192232009. Shane, S. (1995) Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innovation championing roles. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(1): 47–68. Retrieved from www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/stable/155477. Shao, R., Rupp, D.E., Skarlicki, D.P., & Jones, K.S. (2013) Employee justice across cultures: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 39(1): 263–301. doi:10.1177/0149206311422447. Spacey, J. (2015) Why you need to read the air in Japan. Retrieved from www.japan-talk.com/jt/new/kuuki-yomenai. Takaki, R.T. (1993) A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co. Taylor, P. (2014) The next America: Boomers, millennials, and the looming generational showdown. New York: PublicAffairs. Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L.C. (2012) Understanding intercultural communication (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Triandis, H.C. (1972) The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Triandis, H.C. (2004) The many dimensions of culture. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 88–93. doi:10.5465/ame.2004.12689599. Van den Bos, K., & Miedema, J. (2000) Toward understanding why fairness matters: The influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3): 355–366. Wolff, E.N. (2002) Top heavy: The increasing inequality of wealth in America and what can be done about it. New York: New Press. Zinn, H. (2003) A people’s history of the United States: 1492–2001 (new ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

31

3 UNDERSTANDING THE INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION PROCESS

Communication challenge Leo’s case In the few months after meeting David and Aasiya from NewResident Support at the Community Foundation offices, Leo learned more about the organization’s education programs for immigrants. The Community Foundation gave essential start-up funds to NewResident Support a few years ago, and as program officer in the new grant cycle, Leo needed to catch up. First he read all the files. Then he asked to visit a staff meeting, where he met other members of the organization – only a handful, as most program operations were filled by volunteers. Leo was particularly interested in the tutoring programs. He had volunteered for a similar program for Asian immigrants when he was in college. He approached David, the founder and executive director of NewResident Support, who told him he needed to talk with Aasiya, who was the volunteer coordinator for tutors, and a tutor herself. “Maybe you can observe one of her sessions. You know her a little already, so you might feel more comfortable.” Leo had seen Aasiya twice now. He noticed in the staff meeting she was still fairly quiet, as when he first met her at the Community Foundation, but when she did speak, her comments were always on target, and others showed respect toward her. Leo asked David about her background. “She doesn’t say much about her family background. She came to the United States after the civil war in Somalia. She came from England,

32

The intercultural communication process

though, where she studied for a bachelor’s degree in teaching. You can see her English is quite good, with a slight British accent.” When Leo looked puzzled, David chuckled. “That’s right, I remember at our first meeting she didn’t say a word. I noticed. She is generally quiet, but I think at that meeting she was maybe playing the role of a stereotypical Somali woman, representing the organization, quiet and submissive, because she sensed you all as our sponsors would respond best to that. I guess she didn’t want to surprise you and have to explain herself.” David paused. “You know, I thought about that meeting later, because it seemed a little strange, and I wondered if another reason Aasiya didn’t speak was because no one at the table invited her to comment.” Leo felt a little embarrassed. He was one of those people who painted Aasiya with a stereotypical image of a Somali woman, and basically excluded her out of sensitivity for her possible lack of education or language capacity. She adopted the role for their benefit. “Aasiya also has a graduate degree in teaching English as a second language – TESOL,” David continued. “She went to school again after she got here, so she could get the professional training to better teach Somali immigrants who do not speak English, and train our other tutors.” David paused again and smiled encouragingly at Leo. “Try talking to her.” Leo caught up with Aasiya on her way to a tutoring session, and she invited him along. He observed her interacting with others as they walked together, and then in the classroom with her students. She was engaging and confident. Gradually, he detected the slight British accent David mentioned. Afterward, Leo asked Aasiya if he could ask her questions about the program. They agreed to meet at a local coffeeshop in an hour. “Ask away,” Aasiya said, once they settled at a table. She sounded relaxed. Leo briefly outlined what he knew about the NewResident Support programs from the applications and reports on file at the Community Foundation, then asked Aasiya for stories about the participants, including the other tutors who helped run the programs, and practices that worked best, or sometimes worked best. A half-hour passed quickly. Aasiya emphasized the importance of understanding the particular culture when developing support programs for any group of immigrants. Leo learned a lot of details and differences in Somali culture. Overall, family was the most important thing, more so than the individual. A man was expected to be in charge of his home as the head of the household; it was – Leo searched for the right word to capture what Aasiya told him in more than one of her stories – “unacceptable,” he decided, for a man to be irresponsible in taking care of his family, or even be perceived as

33

The intercultural communication process

irresponsible. Then he realized, with a slight shock, that this alternative worldview described so fluently by Aasiya, was the way she grew up. “Can I ask you a personal question?” “Um, sure, I guess,” Aasiya looked a little startled. “No, I mean, it’s just when you described the importance of the family, and family roles, I wonder if for you personally – I’ve been fascinated when you engage the kids, and teens, and adults, everyone, you seem so comfortable – do you get that somehow from your cultural background? Or David told me you have a couple degrees, and maybe your style is just exercising your skills? Do you see what I mean? Obviously both, I suppose …” “Well, thank you for the compliment,” Aasiya laughed. “I have a teaching degree from England, I guess you heard, but many of the tricks, or tips, or style as you called it, I learned when I was teaching at a grade school back home. Maybe family was in there somewhere, schools were generally run like a family would. As for skills laid on top of that, my degree in teaching English as a second language helps, but I think it’s like a foundation, really. It boosts my comfort level. My second master’s degree in statistics – while I was in school, I thought, just as well for two – that actually helps more in how, I don’t know, in how I evaluate my subjects. You made me think of it. I don’t think David even knows I got a second degree during my school years here. I don’t use it much anymore analyzing data and such, but I do think it helps me do my job.” Leo was dumbstruck by this long candid remark by the woman who was completely silent the first time he met her. And more so, by her touching on his key passion. “Wow! Statistics!?” “I guess that’s somewhat unexpected, huh?” Aasiya laughed. “Well, yes. But me, too,” Leo replied. “I specialized in statistical analysis in my master’s degree in public administration and nonprofit management.” Finding a common interest outside the tutoring program opened up a new area of topics for Leo and Aasiya. They shared how they got interested in statistics, and more about their graduate school experiences, and both neglected to notice anymore that one was a Japanese American and the other a Somali in America; that didn’t matter at all. Compared to Leo’s cousins, who never went to college but became wealthy running an orchard in a rural part of the state, and whom he recently encountered again at a family gathering, Aasiya was a breeze to talk to. At one point, he was tempted to ask what it was like for her as a Somali immigrant in the United States, but he held back. For their first meeting at least, he supposed he had already spent his personal question quota.

34

The intercultural communication process

Intercultural communication In the previous chapter we explored dimensions of cultural values and meaning, and how they align with individual character and behavior. Cultures vary, and individuals in different cultures vary accordingly. In some ways, we can predict and manage the differences. In this book, intercultural communication is defined as the interactive symbolic exchange process among individuals whose cultural frames of reference affect their attempt to negotiate shared meanings.1 Three key ideas are included in this definition: 1.

A process of interactive symbolic exchange

2.

A cultural frame of reference

3.

Negotiation of shared meanings

Intercultural communication is a process of interactive symbolic exchange, as it involves individuals exchanging verbal and nonverbal symbols to create messages to communicate ideas. Individuals simultaneously encode their own messages by choosing appropriate words or nonverbal cues to express their intentions, and interpret the intentions of others from the verbal and nonverbal messages given in the situation. When interacting individuals encode and decode verbal and nonverbal symbols, each uses a cultural frame of reference. As discussed in Chapter 2, culture sets up expectations of how messages are conveyed and interpreted. For example, a person from a low-context culture may articulate in words what a person from a high-context culture would expect to be unspoken. Alternative frames FIGURE 3.1 Schematic illustration of intercultural communication process

Shared meaning

Cultural Frame of Reference

Cultural Frame of Reference

Interactive Symbolic Exchange

35

The intercultural communication process

of reference can interrupt or intrude on the goal of communication, and may embarrass one or both of the participants. Accomplishing the goal of communication across cultures to establish shared meaning may be challenging. Taken-for-granted assumptions are removed from one’s repertoire as an actor, leaving a personality, a voice with ideas, and a heart with feelings to express – suddenly misunderstood. Some negotiation is required to interact. Intercultural communication is about overcoming the initial embarrassment to succeed.

Intercultural–intracultural continuum One interesting way to think about intercultural communication is to ask the question: When and how does communication become more intercultural? When cultural frames of reference are different for interacting individuals, the inability to rely on customary assumptions, traditions, beliefs, values, norms, and symbols affects the communication process. As the differences increase, the interaction becomes more intercultural. Within a common cultural frame of reference, cultural factors affect the communication process less. As a sense of common culture is established, the communication becomes more intracultural. Whether communication is described as intracultural or intercultural is not based on one categorical cultural membership. Cultural frames of reference have many parts, and individuals may feel associated or dissociated in multiple ways in different patterns. For example, by ethnicity and nationality, Leo in our story identified himself as Japanese American, and Aasiya identified herself as Somali. When Aasiya informed Leo about cultural orientations and practices of Somalis, their interaction was more intercultural because the frames of reference for the two were clearly different; however, they communicated in a common language, and intracultural familiarity emerged when Leo discovered Aasiya studied statistics in graduate school. Alternatively, the cultural frame of reference Leo shared with his cousins by ethnicity and family, diverged due to education, geography, class, and work, and their interaction became more intercultural. Where interaction is positioned on the intercultural– intracultural continuum depends on the topic, the context, and the individual characters of the participants, drawn from multiple sources and experiences. The disposition is fluid, and may change during the course of a single interaction, or over time.

Culturally mindful communication Unrevealed differences in assumptions, traditions, beliefs, values, norms, and symbols can hinder the negotiation of shared meaning

36

The intercultural communication process

Intracultural–Intercultural Continuum Intracultural Communication

 People share the same assumptions.  Taken-for-granted assumptions are not an issue.

FIGURE 3.2 The intercultural communication process

Intercultural Communication

 People do not share the same assumptions.  Taken-for-granted assumptions are an issue.  Unrevealed assumptions can become a source of conflict.

in a situation, and can even become a source of conflict. Being mindful of one’s own multiple views framing an interaction, and the assumed and revealed frame of reference of others, can improve understanding and effective communication. So, what is “mindful” communication? Paying attention to personal assumptions, and making them more explicit, is a first step to understand a frame of reference. Ellen Langer and other social psychologists refer to this state of heightened awareness as mindfulness (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000). The concept of mindfulness, and the related concept of mindlessness, have been applied to many areas, such as psychopathology, developmental psychology, education, political science, and communication. Mindfulness is defined as a cognitive state where a person consciously pays attention to a mode of thinking and behavior, and (a) actively creates new conceptual categories, (b) remains open to new information, and (c) remains open to more than one perspective (Langer, 1989). Mindlessness is defined as a cognitive state running on standardized, habitual processes, analogous to operating on autopilot, without consciously paying attention to personal thoughts or actions. By this definition, mindlessness is promoted by routine and familiar frames of reference. Mindlessness in intercultural communication can be problematic, because taken-for-granted assumptions are not examined, and achieving shared meaning will be more difficult. Mutual misperception, misunderstanding, and negative judgments will be more likely. Langer (1989, p. 154) points out that “categorizing is a fundamental and natural human activity. It is the way we come to know the world.” Bias is a natural consequence, as we perceive the world by how we shape our categories. This is why flexibility is important in the definition of mindfulness – allowing names and things to take on new associations.

37

The intercultural communication process

As illustrated in Leo’s case, when he first met Aasiya he saw her as Somali, Muslim, and a woman; and based on these categories he made a judgment about her as shy, submissive, and uneducated – applying familiar stereotypes. Later, he learned Aasiya was well educated and had studied in England and the United States. New categories helped him see her in a very different light. To be culturally mindful, it is important to focus on the process of how things are done – not just the outcome. Mindlessness happens when people think they know how to do things in the situations that are very familiar to them. When they go through the motions on autopilot without paying attention to the process, they may miss the subtle cues and changes in the context which can be important for the outcome. The habit of mindlessness fumbles when faced with an unfamiliar situation. A person may miss nuances of expressive behavior in self and others that are affecting the process. A process becomes a rule of behavior and invisible in intracultural situations – situations the process helps define as intracultural. Alternatively, when faced with an unfamiliar intercultural situation, mindfulness is necessary to re-examine the rules and the individuals interpreting them.

What happens in intercultural communication? This section discusses principles that help clarify the meaning and practice of being mindful. The following three theoretical frameworks help examine the functions of mindfulness in the dynamics of intercultural communication: 

Manage anxiety and uncertainty



Accommodate different communication styles



Attribute meaning in the communication process

Manage anxiety and uncertainty In an initial encounter with others, a person is primarily concerned to reduce uncertainty (Gudykunst, 2004, 2005). In unfamiliar situations, uncertainty increases. When people interacting do not know each other well, they are uncertain about the attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values, and behaviors of their counterparts. Consequently, it makes it harder for people to explain and to predict each other’s communication behavior (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). The level of uncertainty tends to be higher when people are interacting with strangers than with people they know (Gudykunst, 1985).

38

The intercultural communication process

When uncertainty is high, a person is likely to feel anxious during communication, and anxiety can be directed into strong feelings about the other person as the source of the emotion (Gudykunst, 2005). Uncertainty, anxiety, and feelings toward others are related. Uncertainty, anxiety, and disparagement tend to come in a bundle. Some degree of uncertainty and anxiety exists in all communication encounters. Based on the premise that people try to manage the level of uncertainty and anxiety so they can predict and explain other people’s behavior, Gudykunst (2005) proposed an Anxiety Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory. This theory explains that people attempt to keep the level of uncertainty and anxiety within maximum and minimum thresholds when communicating. Above the upper threshold, discomfort begins as uncertainty becomes anxiety, and communication becomes ineffective. Below the lower threshold, boredom begins as uncertainty becomes too predictable and certain, and the interaction loses its sense of fun, which also tends to make the communication ineffective. Managing communication in this framework involves finding a position between familiarity and novelty to balance within a comfort range. To effectively manage the level of uncertainty and anxiety, a person needs to assess many factors involved in the communication process, including the characteristics and the roles of the other persons, the social setting, and the rules and norms that govern interactions in a given cultural context. People seek information, partly, so they can make these kinds of communication assessments. Berger (1979) isolated three general types of strategies people use to gather information: passive, active, and interactive strategies: 

Passive strategies involve information-gathering strategies that observe the situation without intervening



Active strategies involve actively seeking information without interacting with the target person



Interactive strategies involve interaction with the target person to gather information

Leo’s story offers examples of these strategies. When Leo observed the staff meetings and tutoring sessions at NewResident Support, he took the role of a passive observer gathering information. When he decided to have coffee with Aasiya to find out more about the program, he used an active strategy of information gathering, connecting with a primary source of information. Leo’s strategy became interactive when he asked Aasiya questions about her own teaching style, interacting with the target person to reveal information.

39

The intercultural communication process

The interactive strategy – asking questions of a person to elicit personal information (verbal interrogation) – has the advantage of being direct, but also has limitations. First, there are too many possible questions to ask. Too many questions can be considered obtrusive or rude, and arouse resistance. The number of questions, timing, and listening are important factors in the interaction. Second, the questions need to be socially appropriate to the nature of the interaction and the relationships of the persons interacting. Some information may not be appropriate to gather by asking questions directly. We saw in Leo’s story how he hesitated to ask Aasiya about her experience of being a Somali immigrant in the United States, finding it perhaps too personal and peripheral to the purpose of the meeting. Determining an appropriate number and type of questions in the course of interaction can be culturally dependent. For example, in one study, respondents from the United States reported that they intended to ask more questions verbally than reported by respondents in a Japanese sample (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1984). In regard to appropriate types of questions, popular books for Westerners traveling to Asian countries such as China, Japan, and South Korea, frequently advise travelers to be prepared for some personal questions about age, marital status, number of children, or salary (e.g., Gudykunst & Nishida, 1994; Vegdahl & Ben, 2008; Zinzius, 2004). Such questions might come as a surprise in the Western context, while they can be expected in the Asian countries noted. Sharing information (self-disclosure) is another interactive strategy for gathering information. People who are not very close, such as those who have just met for the first time, tend to reciprocate in a conversation, telling each other the same information about themselves that the other person has shared. In Leo’s story, for example, when Aasiya shared that she had a second degree in statistics, Leo also informed her that he specialized in statistical analysis in his graduate program. Reciprocal self-disclosure gave them a point of contact, and led to more information-sharing between the two. Again, how self-disclosure is used as an information strategy – in what contexts, with whom, and on what topics – is culturally dependent. In a study of self-disclosure (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1983), comparing Japanese and US Americans across ten topics of conversation among same‑sex friends, the Americans tended to disclose with friends more frequently than Japanese on four topics: relationships with others, love/dating and sex, interests/hobbies, and attitudes/values. The Japanese tended to disclose with friends more frequently on one topic: physical conditions. A subsequent study (Kito, 2005) comparing Japanese and US Americans found a similar distinction, with the Japanese less willing to self-disclose information on romantic relationships and friendships. In a recent study, US Americans were found to be more willing to self-disclose than Romanians as well (Maier et al., 2013).

40

The intercultural communication process

Accommodate different communication styles Speech and other communication styles, to be effective, need to accommodate one to the other, according to the counterpart’s style and the social context of the interaction. Giles (1973) and other communication researchers developed Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) to explain how and why people adjust their communication styles while interacting (see Gallois et al., 2005 for the history). Communication accommodation theory proposes two types of accommodation: convergence and divergence (Giles et al., 2010). Convergence refers to a process where each person adapts a communication style to match the other’s. Divergence refers to a process where a person emphasizes or accentuates differences in communication style. Convergence typically happens when a person wants to gain social approval, and elicit or signal positive feelings or a common social identity (Giles et al., 2007). Teenagers offer an often-observed example: adopting particular words or phrases, with a certain tone and demeanor, when hanging out with peers; yet using the same word or phrase very differently when not with peers. Divergence typically occurs when a person does not want to identify with others in the situation. In this scenario, divergence maintains distance. This can happen when an individual wants to make it clear that their own identity is different from those they are interacting with, or when the person sees those who they are interacting with as inferior to themselves. This kind of intentional divergence signals dissatisfaction and disrespect with the given company (Giles et al., 2007). A teenager using a slang phrase in front of her parents to highlight that she is different from her parents, and to send a message that she does not want to be like them, is an example of the use of divergence. Typically, divergence engenders a negative evaluation by others, but there are some situations where divergence may be prized, as with recent enthusiasm for innovation and dot-com eccentricity. In other cases, divergence may be unavoidable, due to class, origin, physical capacity, personal characteristics, or circumstances. Intention makes a difference in how convergence or divergence are evaluated. Positive intentions in convergence tends to produce favorable response and mutual satisfaction, but perceived insincerity can be viewed as “being fake” or as mockery. In situations with a power imbalance, convergence by the person with more power or prestige (downward convergence) can come across as patronizing, and convergence by the person with less power or prestige (upward convergence) can be viewed as cajoling or coaxing (Giles et al., 2007). Cultural background can affect how a person responds to convergence and divergence (Gallois et al., 1995). Cultures that are

41

The intercultural communication process

more individualistic have been found to be more forgiving to outgroup members who use convergence strategies. Individuals may converge in turn toward the outgroup member reciprocally. Conversely, people from cultures that are more collectivist tend to react negatively toward outgroup attempts at communication convergence. Collectivist communicators may emphasize divergence to maintain distance from outgroup members.

Attribute meaning People attach meanings to behavior when they interact. One perspective on how we all do this is offered by attribution theory, first introduced by Heider (1958), and later developed by several psychologists (Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1967). Heider argued that people are like “naïve psychologists” – making implicit assumptions and social categorizations regarding human nature and behavior. According to this view, we piece together available information, attach implicit meanings, and arrive at some explanation or cause to make sense of other people’s behavior. As the term “implicit” suggests, all of this is likely to occur unconsciously, like walking a staircase, where an unconscious sense of balance takes care, usually, with little conscious attention. Attribution theory proposes two modes of inferring meaning from another’s behavior: internal and external. Internal attribution refers to deriving meanings from a person’s supposed characteristics, related to attitude, motivation, personality, or cultural background. In Leo’s story, for example, he attributed Aasiya’s silence in their initial meeting to her cultural and educational background, namely, Somali woman and undereducated. Attributing behavior to internal factors sometimes helps, and sometimes leads to incorrect assumptions. External attribution refers to deriving meanings from external events and circumstances. In Leo’s story, David, the director of NewResident Support, told Leo he thought the reason Aasiya was quiet was because people at the meeting seemed to have expected her to be quiet because she was a Somali woman, and no one invited her opinion. In this instance, David made an external attribution to Aasiya’s behavior. Attribution error happens when an individual makes inaccurate attributions about the other’s behavior. There is a higher likelihood for attribution error in intercultural communications because people tend to attribute meanings differently for those who belong to their own social group (ingroup) versus those who belong to a different social group (outgroup). As illustrated in Figure 3.3, when attributing positive outcomes: the influence of internal positive personal characteristics tend to be highlighted for ingroup members; the

42

The intercultural communication process

Ingroup vs. Outgroup Attribution Difference

Members of same social group (Ingroup)

Members of different social group (Outgroup)

Positive Outcome (e.g., Promoted at work)

Negative Outcome (e.g., Fired at work)

Positive internal attribution (e.g., He worked hard)

External attribution (e.g., Economy was bad)

External attribution (e.g., She had good mentors)

FIGURE 3.3 Differences in attribution between ingroup and outgroup for positive and negative outcomes

Negative internal attribution (e.g., She was incompetent)

influence of external situational factors tend to be emphasized for outgroup members. When attributing negative outcomes: the influence of external situational factors tend to be highlighted for ingroup members; the influence of internal negative personal characteristics tend to be emphasized for outgroup members (Hewstone & Jaspars, 1984; Kelley, 1967). To illustrate, when a person in an ingroup gets promoted (positive outcome), others might attribute it to the person’s positive character, such as being competent and hard-working; but when a person from an outgroup gets promoted, they are more likely to attribute the promotion to an external factor, such as having a good mentor or being in a right place at the right time. Similarly, when a person in an ingroup gets fired (negative outcome), others might attribute the misfortune to an external factor, such as the bad economy; but when someone from an outgroup gets fired, they may attribute it to negative character, such as being incompetent and lazy (see Box 3.1). This pattern in attribution, with a bias based on ingroup versus outgroup, led to the concept of egocentric bias as a natural propensity in communication. A person views one’s own behavior as normal and appropriate. Egocentric bias refers to an inclination, for oneself, to make internal attributions to explain positive behavior or success, and external attributions to explain negative behavior or failure (Kelley, 1967).

43

The intercultural communication process

Box 3.1 Cultural moments: Possible attribution bias? Recently I attended an academic conference. I am thinking of going on to get a doctorate, and I made a conscious effort to meet some doctoral students to get information about different programs. One of the doctoral students, Joyce, took me under her wing and let me hang out with her. In one of the lunchtime conversations, doctoral students and professors at the table started to talk about the academic job market. That was the major concern for the doctoral students at the table. They started to talk about who got what job at what university. One person they knew, Brian, was mentioned as a successful case. He was hired as an assistant professor right after graduation, when others were having a hard time even trying to land a post-doc position. They said Brain just recently moved to another prestigious university as head of the graduate program. Joyce said something like, “Well, Brian is African American. No offense, but he got a lot of support and mentoring from his fellow African American colleagues.” Others said something similar in agreement with Joyce. Then, they started to talk about Carrie. Carrie did not go into academia, but she became a senior economist at the World Bank. When they were talking about Carrie, Joyce said something like, “Carrie, works so hard and she is so smart. As a young woman scholar, in a field traditionally dominated by men, she has to be very good.” I noticed the differences in how Joyce accounted for the success of Brian and Carrie. (Lina, MPA student; adapted from class online posting)

An ultimate attribution error indicates something different – a systematic pattern of misattribution applied to a certain social group, informed in part by a prejudice due to social relationships (Pettigrew, 1979). Ultimate attribution errors are more likely to occur when communicating in a state of mindlessness. Implications of ultimate attribution errors to intercultural communication are discussed further in Chapter 6, covering prejudice and stereotypes. Attribution of meaning during the communication process can be affected by culture, because culture-based guidelines recommend how people are expected to behave in a given situation. These guidelines, or communication expectancies, are regarded by subjects in a given culture as appropriate, desired, or preferred behaviors, occurring with a familiar regularity in a given context (Burgoon & Hubbard, 2005). Communication expectancies can vary substantially in different cultures, along such cultural dimensions as discussed in Chapter 2: individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, monochronic vs. polychronic time orientation, and high vs. low communication context. One can expect one’s communication expectations to be tested in any intercultural encounter.

44

The intercultural communication process

Attribution of meaning to a person’s behavior in a given situation leads to culturally familiar expectations and personal guidelines for interaction. Expectation Violation Theory (EVT) proposes that when discrepancies in behavior – in speech, gesture, or tone, for example – are evident enough to be recognized, communication expectations are violated (Burgoon, 1978). Initial studies with this theoretical framework focused on the expectation violations of physical distance between individuals in a situation, and how it affected communication. The theory was later expanded to include a variety of both verbal and nonverbal violations (e.g., Burgoon & Le Poire, 1993; Burgoon et al., 1995). According to EVT, unexpected behavior alerts and arouses communicators. A sense of violation causes a person to re-apply internal and external attribution to find meanings for the behavior outside the normal guidelines. A judgment may be made about the person who violated the communication expectancy, and who violated the expectancy becomes an important factor. For example, if a person leaves a meeting abruptly, without explanation, the behavior could startle others as a violation of communication expectations. However, if the person is a higher authority or highly regarded, then the behavior might be momentarily perplexing to others, but is more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt: “Perhaps something urgent came up.” On the other hand, if the person who violated the expectancy is not in authority or highly regarded, others are more likely to critique the situation more harshly and consider the behavior rude or as an indicator of the person’s social incompetence (Burgoon & Hubbard, 2005). The reaction to an expectancy violation also differs according to how interested persons are in each other in a developing relationship. Novelty can be intriguing. Tourists traveling to a foreign country may consider intercultural interactions as opportunities to learn something new about a different culture and lifestyle. On these occasions, intercultural interactions may be favored, jarring as they may be. A person is more willing to expand the bandwidth of expectancy and tolerate a wider range of behavior. After a while, however, the novelty wears off. People tend to revert to their own frame of cultural expectancy, and behavior that was once found intriguing may lose its charm, or become annoying (Burgoon & Hubbard, 2005). The degree to which deviation from communication norms is tolerated can vary depending on cultural orientation. For example, cultures with higher power distance and uncertainty avoidance (e.g., Japan) tend to have more rigid rules and norms that regulate behavior, and they are less tolerant of expectancy violations. On the other hand, cultures with lower power distance and uncertainty avoidance (e.g., the United States) tend to have fewer rules and norms that regulate behavior, and adherence to communication expectations is more loosely judged (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997).

45

The intercultural communication process

Chapter summary 

Intercultural communication is a process of interactive symbolic exchange. It is based on a shared understanding of cultural frames of reference and the negotiation between those frames of reference.



Communication becomes more intercultural as the degree of difference in the frames of reference for interacting individuals increases, and they cannot rely on customary assumptions, traditions, beliefs, values, norms, and symbols that affect the communication process.



Communication becomes more intracultural when the interacting individuals have a more common cultural frame of reference and cultural factors that affect the communication process less.



To be successful in both intra- and intercultural contexts, cultural mindfulness is necessary; it broadens the number of categories we use to classify our experience and, thus, decreases the effect our bias has on attributing values to unexpected behaviors.



Passive, active, and interactive strategies can be used to manage anxiety and uncertainty that arises in the initial encounter with others.



Communicators use convergence and divergence strategies in interaction to adjust and accommodate their own communication styles to others.



People attribute meaning to behavior when they interact. Culture has guidelines for how people are expected to behave in a given context. When there is a discrepancy in guidelines across cultures, communication expectations can be violated during intercultural communication, and affect how people attribute the cause of the other’s behavior.

Questions for discussion and written assignments 1.

46

Shared meaning and cultural frame of reference can be specific to nations, organizations, and even families.

The intercultural communication process



Give an example of a symbolic exchange or shared meaning specific to the country you are from.



Give an example of a symbolic exchange or shared meaning specific to your school (or work organization).



Give an example of a symbolic exchange or shared meaning specific to your family or a group of friends.

2.

Explain the anxiety uncertainty management (AUM) theory in your own words. Explain its significance in the context of public service.

3.

You are a public administrator for a local public agency and you are confronted with an upset resident whose cultural background is different from your own. Describe the complexity of the situation and how you will negotiate for understanding. Refer to strategies and other elements introduced in this chapter to evaluate the intercultural context.

Key words Anxiety Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory attribution error attribution theory Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) communication expectancies convergence divergence egocentric bias Expectation Violation Theory (EVT)

external attribution intercultural communication intercultural–intracultural continuum internal attribution mindfulness mindlessness self-disclosure ultimate attribution error

Note 1 The term cross-cultural communication is frequently used interchangeably with intercultural communication. Communication scholars, however, narrowly define the study of cross-cultural communication as the comparison of communication styles across different cultures (e.g., comparison of high-context communication style versus low-context communication style). Because the focus here is the implications of cultural variability in interactive processes, not just cross-cultural comparisons, the term intercultural communication is used.

47

The intercultural communication process

References Berger, C.R. (1979) Beyond initial interaction. In H. Giles & R.S. Clair (eds), Language and social psychology (pp. 122–144). Oxford: Blackwell. Berger, C.R., & Calabrese, R.J. (1975) Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2): 99–112. Burgoon, J.K. (1978) A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4(2): 129–142. Burgoon, J.K., & Hubbard, A.E. (2005) Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of expectancy violations theory and interaction adaptation theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burgoon, J.K., & Le Poire, B.A. (1993) Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research, 20(1): 67–96. Burgoon, J.K., Le Poire, B.A., & Rosenthal, R. (1995) Effects of preinteraction expectancies and target communication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(4): 287–321. Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A.C., & Ota, H. (1995) Accommodating intercultural encounters: Elaborations and extensions. In R.L. Wiseman (ed.), Intercultural communication theory: International and intercultural communication annual (pp. 115–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2005) Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In W.B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Giles, H. (1973) Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15(2): 87–105. Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (2010) Contexts of accommodation: Development in applied sociolinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Giles, H., Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Anderson, M.C. (2007) Accommodating a new frontier: The context of law enforcement. In K. Fiedler (ed.), Social communication (pp. 129–162). New York: Psychology Press. Gudykunst, W.B. (1985) A model of uncertainty reduction in intercultural encounters. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4(2): 79–98. Gudykunst, W.B. (2003) Cross-cultural and intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gudykunst, W.B. (2004) Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (4th ed., Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gudykunst, W.B. (2005) An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of effective communication: Making the mesh of the net finer. In W.B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 281–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y. (1997) Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Gudykunst, W.B., & Nishida, T. (1983) Social penetration in Japanese and American close friendships. In R.N. Bostrom & B.H. Westley (eds), Communication yearbook (Vol. 7, pp. 592–610). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

48

The intercultural communication process

Gudykunst, W.B., & Nishida, T. (1984) Individual and cultural influence on uncertainty reduction. Communication Monographs, 51(1): 23–36. Gudykunst, W.B., & Nishida, T. (1994) Bridging Japanese/North American differences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Heider, F. (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Hewstone, M., & Jaspars, J.M.F. (1984) Social dimensions of attribution. In H. Tajfel (ed.), The social dimension (Vol. 2, pp. 379–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, E.E., & Davis, K.E. (1965) From acts to dispositions – the attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2(4): 219–266. Kelley, H.H. (1967) Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192–238. Kito, M. (2005) Self-disclosure in romantic relationships and friendships among American and Japanese college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 145(2): 127–140. doi:10.3200/socp.145.2.127-140. Langer, E.J. (1989) Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Langer, E.J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000) The construct of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1): 1–9. Maier, G.A., Zhang, Q., & Clark, A. (2013) Self-disclosure and emotional closeness in intracultural friendships: A cross-cultural comparison among US Americans and Romanians. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 42(1): 22–34. doi:10.1080/17475759.2012.703620. Pettigrew, T.F. (1979) The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(4): 461–476. Vegdahl, S., & Ben, H. (2008) CultureShock! Korea: A survival guide to customs and etiquette. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish. Zinzius, B. (2004) Doing business in the new China: A handbook and guide. Westport, CT: Praeger.

49

4 VERBAL COMMUNICATION

Communication challenge Lavita’s case Lavita met Keiko for lunch at a café on Campus Boulevard, their regular rendezvous when they were students. Keiko then was an international student from Japan in the undergraduate communications program, and she was having a hard time in class. Lavita was a doctoral student volunteer in the tutoring program. They were assigned to each other for English writing, and first met here. “I think you might be the perfect person for what I need.” Lavita laid down her bag. Keiko was already sitting. She tilted forward, expectant, but remained quiet. Lavita examined her. “How would you like to run a cultural training session for employees of the City of Westlawn?” “Of course!” Keiko exclaimed. “I’ll talk to my supervisor.” It was a typical exchange and easy progress. They discussed a few essential details for a plan until lunch arrived. Then the conversation turned to personal matters. “How are your parents?” Keiko asked. “Doing great. Though they still insist I talk to them in Spanish. And Dad gets on my case that I don’t practice my violin enough.” Keiko grinned. She knew Lavita’s parents well. For her graduation project on immigrant acculturation experiences in the United States, she interviewed Lavita’s parents, along with thirty-some other household heads in the Westlawn area; and since she knew Lavita at school, the

50

Verbal communication

allotted hour stretched longer. Lavita’s parents shared many stories, off the record, mostly about Lavita. Keiko became friends with Lavita’s parents first. They treated her like a daughter, before Lavita was quite aware she had a new sister. Lavita’s parents came to the United States when her mother enrolled in a US medical school. When her mother was awarded a residency at the Westlawn Hospital, her parents decided to emigrate. Her mother’s English was fluent, and her career was growing in the United States. Lavita’s father, on the other hand, was a musician; he had no formal English-language education before their move, and in Mexico he played violin and acoustic guitar in a professional mariachi band: a genre of traditional Mexican music not well known in the United States. Her father faced the most challenges. During the first year, her parents enrolled together at the community college for a class in English as a second language (ESL). “I still remember what your Dad told me,” Keiko said, “how he felt not being able to speak English. And the ESL classes.” “What? He never says anything about those classes. Mom only jokes about it.” “No joke, I think,” Keiko answered. “He said he felt inferior, like he didn’t count as a person until he learned English.” Lavita pondered this “count as a person” notion, and recalled similar remarks from her father at the dinner table about his music. He was told it was quaint, like the 1950s. For her parents, she knew speaking Spanish at home was one way they kept their cultural heritage. “Being bilingual can be awkward,” Keiko continued. “That’s my point.” Lavita was still off in the past. “It’s about Leo,” Keiko declared. Lavita was confused: “Leo? Who?” “Like, my boyfriend. Where have you been?” “You’re serious?” “Yes, serious, I mean boyfriend serious. I don’t know how serious we are.” Keiko laid out the situation. “Leo is third‑generation Japanese American. He speaks almost no Japanese. So, we went out to dinner last night with a group of Japanese clients I’m working with. They all speak good English, so I thought it would be all right. But when I introduced Leo, they started speaking to him in Japanese. Natural. He looks Asian. His last name is Japanese. Leo had to tell them he did not speak Japanese, and started using gestures to communicate. He’s cute. It was not awful, but I could see no one was amused.” “Oh, that must have been embarrassing for Leo.” “That was just the awkward part. The rest was embarrassing. Leo felt left out. I had been talking to these folks in Japanese all day, so it was natural for them to continue to relate to me in Japanese. I

51

Verbal communication

switched to English a little to keep Leo involved, but that turned out strange – everyone was uncomfortable.” “I know what you mean,” Lavita responded. “Something sort of the same happened when I was a kid and had a friend over. My parents started talking Spanish to each other in the next room and my friend got all upset; she thought they were saying something bad about her and wanted to keep it secret. Or something. I don’t know. People can be really sensitive when others aren’t speaking their language.” Keiko nodded, and reached for cash to pay the bill. “We’d be embarrassed, too, if we didn’t have the right currency,” she concluded. Lavita was ready to go. She laid down her credit card and took Keiko’s cash. “And of course,” Lavita added, “it’s better when we share.”

The function of language Language is an arbitrary symbolic system used to label and categorize objects, events, groups, people, and various phenomena, including our own expressions of language. It is arbitrary because the relationships between the words and what they symbolize is not innate. Shared understanding of the sounds and meanings of words is developed among people who use them in their everyday lives. The sounds and forms of language are culture-specific. Even with the same content, language can designate a thing one way or another. In English the word “book” symbolizes an object that looks like Figure 4.1. The same object is a livre in French, and pronounced but not written as “hon” in Japanese, and “shu-” in Chinese. In different cultures, the mental picture of the book might look a little different, too, as in the position of the binding depending on which way the book is read. Cultural differences in words and their contents can also have multiple layers of meaning, with culturally specific associations. A word or a phrase can have an objective (denotative) meaning, FIGURE 4.1 Books (collections of printed pages bound together along one side)

52

Verbal communication

and a subjective (connotative) meaning. Denotative meaning refers to the dictionary definition shared and recognized by people who use the word. Connotative meaning refers to interpretive additions to the meaning of a word or phrase, typically through cultural and personalized use in a given context. The word “book” has a denotative meaning, as a collection of printed pages bound together along one side. Alternatively, a person might also say, with a connotative meaning, “We don’t have to do everything by the book,” interpreting “book” as “rules.” Connotative meanings are highly context-dependent and culture-based, and are a prominent source of miscommunication (see Box 4.1).

Box 4.1 Cultural moments: I intended to compliment you! I was born and raised in a country in West Africa called Benin. I went to London to study over there to study journalism. During a break at my English immersion class, I approached one of my classmates, Heidi, and initiated a casual conversation. Heidi was from the Netherlands, and I found her attractive. In my attempt to get closer to her, I thought I should say something about her feature that I find attractive. I said something like, “You look like you gained some weight since I saw you first in this class. You are getting fat.” In my native country Benin, saying that someone is looking “fat” is considered a compliment to the person. So in my mind, I was trying to flatter Heidi by letting her know that she looked really good. To my surprise, Heidi became mute, turned red, and looked furious. Another student from the class, who happened to witness the moment, quickly apologized to Heidi on my behalf, and told me that I should also apologize to her. This French student, who had some familiarity with the African culture gave me a quick culture lesson, explaining to me that in the Western culture telling someone they are “fat” or “overweight” is rude and offensive to the person. He told me that Heidi would probably never speak to me again, and she did not. I learned that in communicating with others, even when we understand and share the dictionary meaning of a word such as “fat,” the word can have different connotations based on the culture, and can be interpreted differently from culture to culture. (Lambert Adjibogoun, Executive MPA student; adapted from the class paper)

When language is used to express abstract notions, such as feelings, ideas, and thoughts, the content is less tangible, and the communication becomes more about interpersonal relationships through the use of language. Especially here, how something is said can affect the relationship – to enhance and attract (e.g., Clark et al., 1999), or provoke tension and conflict (e.g., Guerrero & Gross, 2014).

53

Verbal communication

Relationship between verbal communication and culture According to a recent estimate, there are at least 7,102 living languages in the world today (Noack & Gamio, 2015). Each language reflects a different cultural context and orientation for people who learn and speak it. Language comprehends the world. The world can be much the same in different languages, and translation works to represent like meanings. Only the expression differs. Some concepts, though, or worldviews, may be unique to a particular language. These basic aspects of language are well recognized. In addition, differences may occur by how people use their language. For example, cultures that are more individualistic are more likely to use words that emphasize “I” or “me,” and “my goal”; cultures that are more collectivistic are more likely to use words that emphasize “we” or “us,” and “our group” (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2012). Language use shapes the world.

Language and the thinking pattern The linguists Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf observed a close relationship between language and cultural patterns of thought, resulting in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, or linguistic relativity hypothesis. The hypothesis is based on their observation that “[l]anguage is a guide to ‘social reality’ … Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society” (Sapir, 1929, p. 209). Whorf (1952) developed the further thesis that “the linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual’s mental activity, his analysis of impressions, for his mental stock in trade” (p. 5). Whorf used examples from Native American Hopi language to illustrate how language structure is connected to thinking patterns. He noted the Hopi language does not have a grammatical system to differentiate past, present, and future as most European languages do. Instead, the Hopi language has a wide range of present tenses. He also observed that days and years are not used as countable quantities. The emphasis is on duration. So rather than saying, “they stayed eight days,” Hopi speakers will say, “I know they stayed until the seventh day.” The structural norms of the language seem to affect the way Hopi speakers think about time, focused more on here and now. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has prompted discussions, debates, and series of research agendas among linguists, psychologists, anthropologists, and communication researchers, investigating the nature of

54

Verbal communication

language, cognitive processes, their interactions, and the role of culture (Kay & Kempton, 1984). The hypothesis drew critiques from some linguists and psychologists (e.g., Devitt & Sterelny, 1987; Pinker, 1994), and what is referred to as a strong form (i.e., language determines people’s thinking patterns) seems to have been largely discredited with no empirical evidence to support the claim. The weak form (i.e., language helps shape people’s thinking patterns), however, seems to have ongoing support and interest (Gentner & Goldin-Meadow, 2003).

Language and cultural identity Language plays an important part in a person’s identity. Language is a tool to negotiate with others for instrumental ends, but it is also used as a presentation of self to others in a social relationship and a cultural context. A sense of self is formed and retained in the ability to use a particular language in a particular context (Norton, 2000; Trechter & Bucholtz, 2001). When a person’s native language, or perceived native language, is different from the dominant language in the social environment, negotiating one’s identity faces challenges. Many people who immigrate to the United States come from non-Englishspeaking countries. In Lavita’s case, for example, her parents were immigrants from Mexico and learned to speak English as a practical necessity. Speaking English is also important for immigrants to facilitate entrance and acceptance in community activities and organizations. Those who speak English have been observed to be more likely to be admitted to social groups and granted more social and political power than those who do not (Fairclough, 2015). Too much emphasis on the dominant language in a culture, as in an English-only policy, creates class disparities. Immigrant language learners may feel their first language is not valued, and inequitable social relationships may be more likely to occur (Cummins & Early, 2011). Class disparities can also be the cause, rather than the effect, of emphasizing a dominant language. Changes in language, particularly across generations, affect a person’s cultural identity. In school systems where second-language learning is not supported and valued, second-language speakers may feel increased pressure to be fluent in the predominant language to assimilate into the mainstream culture. This is often achieved at the expense of losing touch with the native language and the cultural identity associated with it (Norton, 2000). In Leo’s case, for example, he identifies himself as American, rather than by his Japanese heritage. The language a person speaks is frequently seen as a main indicator of the speaker’s cultural identity and group membership. In Lavita’s story, for example, Keiko told the story of Leo having dinner with her and her Japanese clients, and the awkward and embarrassing moments that ensued, because Leo appeared as he should, but did not, speak

55

Verbal communication

Japanese. A common language highlights and signals ties among ingroup members. Those who do not share a common language are automatically seen as outgroup members, separate from the ingroup. A person who can speak multiple languages may intentionally change from one to another language, and even mix them together in a conversation, depending on the people and languages in the situation. This communication behavior – speaking a different language, dialect, or accent according to the situation – is called code switching (Auer, 1998; Isurin et al., 2009). Code switching may occur for a variety of reasons: (a) to express different aspects of one’s cultural identity, (b) to signal group membership to others, or (c) to accommodate or alienate other speakers. In Lavita’s story, both Lavita and Keiko were familiar with code switching between English and their native languages, Spanish and Japanese respectively. Still, Keiko’s dinner story with Leo and her Japanese clients showed she had difficulties managing the situation when others were less capable of code switching, on both sides. For a multilingual person, the decision when to code switch can be natural, or a complex issue with consequences. The more fluent persons in the situation may find themselves in a difficult position with ingroups and outgroups.

Language and social change Language is affected by social changes. One very broad social factor that impacts language worldwide is the recent surge of social media and electronic communication (Brown, 2012; Jasilek, 2013; Leonardi et al., 2013; Reed, 2014). Social media include websites and other software applications for electronic devices that allow users to create and share content with others, facilitating new ways to participate in social networking (boyd & Ellison, 2007). Numerous social networking sites can be accessed easily via the internet (eBizMBA, 2016). Social media introduced new meanings and usages of various words and phrases. Terms such as “tweet,” “follow,” and “friend” now have specific meanings, referring to what people do with social media (Brown, 2012). People use the words “Facebook” or “friend” as a verb, and construct sentences such as “I will Facebook you,” or “I will friend you,” instead of saying “I will send you a message on Facebook,” or “I will invite you as a friend on Facebook” (Jasilek, 2013). This is mostly because when using social media, people are expected to respond in a quick and speedy manner. One social media platform, Twitter, limits the length of messages people can send and read to 140 characters. This forces users to convey messages using fewer words, which leads to the popular use of abbreviations such as “OMG” (oh, my god!) and “LOL” (laugh out loud).

56

Verbal communication

Language can also trigger social change. One example of language creating social change is found in efforts to use more gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language to facilitate gender equality. In the backdrop of this effort lies the fact that many languages, including English, have customarily used masculine personal nouns and pronouns (e.g., mankind, he) to refer to groups where both male and female genders are represented, and in referring to people whose gender is unknown (for an overview, see e.g., Hellinger et al., 2001). Examples of masculine-generic language include phrases such as “let the best man win,” or “that’s great news for mankind.” Such language use has led to concerns that it serves to perpetuate gender bias and inequality in society. Research provides evidence that when people hear masculinegeneric nouns and pronouns, they usually think of the referent as being male. When job titles use masculine-generic nouns such as policeman, fireman, and chairman, it invokes the perception that these jobs are more appropriate for males, and it consequently limits the perception of career options for women (Gygax et al., 2008; Stahlberg et al., 2001). Other research shows that gender-biased language can affect the evaluation of status and the perceived competence of women (Merkel et al., 2012). Women subjected to masculine-generic language in the work environment tend to have a lower sense of belonging and motivation, and are more likely to feel they are ostracized by the group (Stout & Dasgupta, 2011). Such research findings support ongoing efforts to substitute gender-neutral and gender‑inclusive language in common use. For example, professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association (2010), the American Philosophical Association (Warren, n.d.), and the Linguistic Society of America (1995) have guidelines to avoid the use of gender-biased terms in their publications. Common recommendations include the use of plural nouns, such as people and they, instead of the masculine-generic man. Alternative job titles avoid the use of masculine‑generic terms, preferring, for example, police officer, fire fighter, and chairperson, instead of policeman, fireman, and chairman. Government bodies are also reviewing their use of language in official documents, and taking steps to conform to gender-neutral language. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of June 2014, at least 30 states have language in statutes requiring that new laws and amendments to existing laws be drafted in gender-neutral language (Jayson, 2014). States that have passed gender-neutral constitutional mandates include California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Utah. Other states – Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, and Washington – have state laws to eliminate gender bias terms in their official lexicon, changing words such as “freshman” to “first-year student,” “journeyman plumber” to “journey-level plumber,”

57

Verbal communication

“penmanship” to “handwriting,” and “signalman” to “signal operator” (Meyer, 2014). While changes in the use of language may not be sufficient to cause drastic changes in society (creating gender equality, for example), Liz Watson, senior advisor for the National Women’s Center, notes that “words matter” (Meyer, 2014). With the recognition of the significant effect of language on people’s behavior and societal norms, it is reasonable to believe, and find in one’s own experience, that language can certainly be used as a tool to trigger changes in attitude and behavior, and from there, possibly build on new values, beliefs, and institutional social changes.

Difference in verbal communication style across cultures As was discussed in Chapter 2, cultures differ in multiple dimensions, such as individualistic vs. collectivistic, high and low power distance, high and low uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001), and high- and lowcontext communication style (Hall, 1989). These cultural orientations affect verbal behaviors. The following sections examine three verbal communication styles related to different cultural orientations: 

direct vs. indirect forms of verbal behavior



person-oriented vs. status-oriented language



self-enhancement vs. self-humbling verbal style

Direct and indirect verbal style Cultures differ in preference for direct speech, where speakers explicitly verbalize their intent, needs, and desires; or indirect speech, where speakers camouflage the message in some way. English speakers in the United States seem to favor the direct form of verbal style, emphasizing the values of honesty, openness, and forthrightness. Phrases such as “Don’t beat around the bush,” “Get to the point,” and “Say what you want,” are commonly used as advice for speakers (Martin & Nakayama, 2012). Other cultures known to be more collectivistic and high-context in their communication styles, such as the Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Native Americans, have a cautious attitude toward verbalizing thoughts, ideas, and emotions in words (Martin & Nakayama, 2012). In general, members of collectivistic cultures tend to be more concerned with preserving the harmony of relationships and the overall emotional quality of the interaction than being honest, open, and forthright. Being courteous and maintaining social harmony within the group is more important than being truthful for members of these cultures (Gudykunst & Kim, 2005) (see Box 4.2).

58

Verbal communication

Box 4.2 Cultural moments: Hiroshima Memorial Cenotaph In the center of the City of Hiroshima, Japan, the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park memorializes over 150,000 victims who were killed by the atomic bomb dropped in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, at the end of World War II. Under the arch-shaped Memorial Cenotaph stands an epitaph (see Figure 4.2) that says “安らかに眠って下さい 過ちは 繰返しませぬから,” in Japanese. The direct translation of this Japanese phrase is “please rest in peace, for [we/they] shall not repeat the error.” In the original Japanese sentence, the subject is omitted, and therefore the entity intended to be responsible for committing to not repeat the error is not explicitly stated. Japanese grammar allows construction of a sentence without including the subject. This type of lexical ambiguity is sometimes used in Japanese verbal communication in order to be polite and as a way to avoid putting someone on the spot. In 1983, in order to clarify the intent of the epitaph, an explanation plaque was added in English. The plaque says the following: The inscription on the front panel offers a prayer for the peaceful repose of the victims and a pledge on behalf of all humanity never to repeat the evil of war. It expresses the spirit of Hiroshima – enduring grief, transcending hatred, pursuing harmony and prosperity for all, and yearning for genuine, lasting world peace.

FIGURE 4.2 Hiroshima Memorial Cenotaph (Fukushima, 1995; Mantle, 2013)

59

Verbal communication

Direct versus indirect verbal styles may have long cultural roots. One recent argument relates a direct style, common in North America and Europe, to an ancient educational background in rhetoric, where speech is considered independent of its communicative and social context, and can be an object of inquiry; and to an individualistic cultural orientation in the modern era, where people engage in communication as separate entities, and relate primarily through the verbal message. In this cultural context, people express ideas and thoughts as clearly, logically, and persuasively as possible verbally, “so speakers can be fully recognized for their individuality in influencing others” (Gudykunst & Kim, 2005, p. 200). Different preferences and norms for using direct versus indirect verbal styles can be a source of miscommunication and conflict in organizational settings, particularly when people are not mindful of the differences. For example, managers across cultures agree on the importance of providing constructive criticism when evaluating employee performance, but what is considered “constructive,” and how the message should be crafted may be quite different from culture to culture (Meyer, 2014). In direct cultures, a qualifier called an upgrader, such as “absolutely” or “totally,” is often used in giving negative feedback to emphasize the point. A manager might say something like, “this is absolutely inappropriate,” or “this is totally unacceptable.” In indirect cultures, qualifiers called downgraders are more often used, such as “kind of,” “a little,” “somewhat,” “probably,” or “maybe.” A manager might say, “your productivity is kind of lower compared to others,” or “maybe you should work harder on not being late to meetings.” Such differences in emphasis can affect relationships when the workforce is composed of individuals with different cultural orientations in verbal style. Direct versus indirect communication style can affect other ways in which the feedback is provided, and received. A Dutch manager, for example, from a culture that values honesty, may give clear and concise information regarding performance to an employee in a direct manner. The Dutch employee, though not necessarily happy with negative feedback from the manager, can also appreciate that the manager is transparent enough to provide an open assessment. Depending on the situation, criticism might occur with others present. A Chinese manager, on the other hand, does not criticize an employee in front of others, to spare embarrassment. The Chinese manager makes an effort to blur the negative message, and the message is more likely to be given slowly over a period of time, allowing the employee time to absorb the information. Another style appears in the American manager, who is encouraged to wrap positive messages around negative ones, starting with praise, followed by criticism. Differences in direct versus indirect verbal styles can result in miscommunication, particularly in the workplace. Negative feedback

60

Verbal communication

can be demoralizing to employees, and people in managerial positions need to be especially mindful of the way they provide feedback to employees.

Person-oriented vs. status-oriented verbal style Cultures differ in whether verbal communication focuses on persons or social status in a situation. A person-oriented verbal style emphasizes the “importance of respecting unique, personal identities in the interactions” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 106). A status-oriented verbal style emphasizes the “importance of honoring prescribed power-based membership identities” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 106). In general, individualistic cultures with a low-context communication style tend to be more person-oriented in verbal style. The English language is considered a person-oriented language (Goldstein & Tamura, 1975; Okabe, 1983): English speakers clarify individual identities by name or pronouns such as I, you, he, and she; individuals are clearly identified, unless grouped under plural pronouns like we. On the contrary, collectivistic cultures with a high-context communication style tend to be more status-oriented. Asian languages such as Japanese, Korean, and Chinese are considered to be status-oriented languages (Goldstein & Tamura, 1975; Lu et al., 2014; Okabe, 1983; Yum, 1988): these languages have elaborate language marking systems to differentiate status in any situation, with different inflectional endings, address terms, pronouns, lexical items, honorifics, and so on, to differentiate formal and informal status differences. In Asian countries, age and job titles are traditional elements of status. A year or two in age matters. In Japanese organizations, those who are older or have been with the organization longer are referred to as senpai by those who are younger or have less seniority. Senpai employees call the younger and junior employees kohai (Scott, 2014). Also in Japan, people are commonly addressed not by their individual names, but by their job title, such as shachou (president), kacho (manager), and sensei (teacher). Sensei, which means “first born,” is typically used to address people with jobs that require professional skills, such as school teachers, medical doctors, art/sports masters, professors, and lawyers. It is considered a title of respect, sometimes applied to politicians or authors (De Mente, 2004). Common use of such terms in Japanese society indicates a status-oriented verbal style. Multicultural situations involving person- versus status-oriented verbal styles can lead to communication challenges. Failing to use appropriate honorifics or terms of respect may offend a person accustomed to a status-oriented verbal style. Similarly, overusing such terms can cause discomfort or frustrate communication with a person accustomed to a person-oriented verbal style.

61

Verbal communication

Self-enhancement and self-humbling verbal style Cultures differ in the value placed on self-enhancement versus selfhumbling verbal communication. A self-enhancement verbal style highlights a person’s accomplishments, abilities, and credentials. A self-humbling verbal style downplays a person’s accomplishments by using modest expressions, restraint, hesitation, and self-deprecation and self-effacement (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2012). In the United States, the ability to promote oneself is considered an important and necessary aspect of a healthy skill set in the workplace. In job interviews and performance reviews, people are expected to emphasize their accomplishments, expertise, work skills, and also emphasize their ability to be a good team player (DuBrin, 2011). On the contrary, in many Asian cultures self-humbling talk is expected, presenting modesty and humility. In Japan, for example, a host serving tea to a guest will customarily say, “So cha desuga, douzo” (“This is just a plain tea, but please help yourself”); or when presenting a gift, “Tsumaranai mono desuga …” (“This is not something special, and may be boring, but …”). Cultural differences in self-construal were recognized in foundational work by Markus and Kitayama (1991). Some cultural psychologists (e.g., Heine, 2008) now argue that people in the United States and other Western cultures have an independent construal of self – internally driven and motivated to excel as an independent individual. This individualistic cultural orientation in self‑construal supports a self‑enhancement verbal style. Alternatively, a collectivistic cultural orientation in self-construal is associated with the self-humbling verbal style (Yamagishi et al., 2012). A study by Kim (2014) examined the use of self-humbling verbal styles in Korean and Japanese, and concluded that Asian speakers denigrate themselves to emphasize relationships and harmony, indicating a motivation “to cultivate and contribute to a sense of homogeneity within the group” (Kim, 2014, p. 94). Other factors may influence the use of self-enhancement versus selfhumbling verbal styles. Condon and Masumoto (2011) associated a self‑humbling verbal style with the politeness ritual common in many Asian cultures. Even in job interviews or performance evaluations, a person may refrain from pointing out accomplishments, because they believe their performance will be noticed by their supervisors or reviewers without highlighting them (Ting-Toomey, 1999). The samples here offer insights into the ways verbal style can vary across cultures. The styles are associated with different values and norms. Being mindful of potential differences in the preferred verbal style in a situation can help to avoid intercultural miscommunication and misconduct.

62

Verbal communication

Chapter summary 

This chapter describes verbal communication and the function of language as arbitrary, noting that words and symbols that represent objects and ideas are not innate, so they differ from culture to culture and sometimes from subculture to subculture.



Languages may differ in how they represent the world around a speaker, and how speakers think about the world.



While there is little evidence to support language determining thinking patterns, there is ample evidence showing how language shapes thinking patterns. Taking this into consideration in contexts involving intercultural communication is important; one must recognize there are cultural and language-related ramifications for cultural identity and social change.



Finally, this chapter discussed cultural differences stemming from direct and indirect verbal styles, person-oriented and status-oriented verbal styles, and self-enhancement and self-humbling verbal styles.



Various communication styles can lead to different outcomes in verbal communication, and not being aware of the styles familiar to one’s speaking partner may lead to confusion and frustration in communication.

Questions for discussion and written assignments 1.

Describe your own communication style. Are you direct or indirect, person-oriented or status-oriented, self-enhancing or self-humbling? Be sure to include a clear example to support your response.

2.

Rewrite the following masculine-generic phrases with genderinclusive language: 

Hey guys! How’s it going?



If a doctor is good, he will be able to explain to his patient clearly what the treatment will be like. He is not concerned about himself but rather for the well‑being of his patients.



“… though man in that state [of liberty] have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has

63

Verbal communication

not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession” (John Locke, 2nd Treatise, S6). 3.

Write about a time when you experienced a cultural moment stemming from misunderstandings related to verbal style. Explain what caused the misunderstanding using terms from this chapter, then describe what actions could have been taken to avoid or reduce the effects of the misunderstanding. Remember that such cultural moments may occur among people you consider to be from the same culture as you are from.

Key words code switching connotative meaning denotative meaning downgrader gender-inclusive language gender-neutral language linguistic relativity hypothesis

masculine-generic language person-oriented verbal style Sapir-Whorf hypothesis self-enhancement verbal style self-humbling verbal style status-oriented verbal style upgrader

References American Psychological Association. (2010) Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://supp.apa.org/style/p ubman-ch03.00.pdf. Auer, P. (1998) Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London: Routledge. boyd, d.m., & Ellison, N.B. (2007) Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1): 210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x. Brown, A. (2012) OMG! The impact of social media on English. Retrieved from www.imediaconnection.com/articles/ported-articles/blogs/2012/au g/omg-the-impact-of-social-media-on-the-english-language/. Clark, C.L., Shaver, P.R., & Abrahams, M.F. (1999) Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6): 709–722. doi:10.1177/0146167299025006006. Condon, J.C., & Masumoto, T. (2011) With respect to the Japanese: Going to work in Japan (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Intercultural Press. Cummins, J., & Early, M. (2011) Identity texts: The collaborative creation of power in multilingual schools. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. De Mente, B. (2004) Japan’s cultural code words: 233 key terms that explain the attitudes and behavior of the Japanese. Rutland, VT: Tuttle Publishing. Devitt, M., & Sterelny, K. (1987) Language and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DuBrin, A.J. (2011) Impression management in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice. New York: Routledge.

64

Verbal communication

eBizMBA. (2016) Top 15 most popular social networking sites. April 2016. Retrieved from www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites. Fairclough, N. (2015) Language and power (3rd ed.). London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Fukushima, Y. (1995) Kenshou Hiroshima 1945–1995 (Revisiting Hiroshima 1945–1995). Retrieved from www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp/mediacen ter/article.php?story=20120328164903132_ja. Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003) Whither Whorf. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds), Language in mind advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 3–14). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goldstein, B.Z., & Tamura, K. (1975) Japan and America: A comparative study in language and culture. Rutland, VT: C.E. Tuttle Co. Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y. (2005) Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Guerrero, L.K., & Gross, M.A. (2014) Argumentativeness, avoidance, verbal aggressiveness, and verbal benevolence as predictors of partner perceptions of an individual’s conflict style. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 7(2): 99–120. doi:10.1111/ncmr.12029. Gygax, P., Gabriel, U., Sarrasin, O., Oakhill, J., & Garnham, A. (2008) Generically intended, but specifically interpreted: When beauticians, musicians, and mechanics are all men. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(3): 464–485. Hall, E.T. (1989) Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books. Heine, S.J. (2008) Cultural psychology. New York: W.W. Norton. Hellinger, M., Bussmann, H., & Motschenbacher, H. (2001) Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men. Amsterdam, Netherlands: J. Benjamins. Hofstede, G.H. (2001) Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Isurin, L., Winford, D., & De Bot, K. (2009) Multidisciplinary approaches to code switching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Jasilek, N. (2013) The effect of social media on language. Retrieved from http://blog.lspr-education.com/socialmedia/the-effect-of-social-media-onlanguage/. Jayson, S. (2014) Gender loses its impact with the young. Retrieved from www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/21/gender-millenn ials-dormitories-sex/10573099/. Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984) What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1): 65–79. Kim, M.H. (2014) Why self-deprecating? Achieving “oneness” in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 69, 82–98. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.004. Leonardi, P.M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013) Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1): 1–19. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12029. Linguistic Society of America. (1995) The LSA guidelines for nonsexist usage. Retrieved from www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/lsa-guidelinesnonsexist-usage. Lu, A., Zhang, H., He, G., Zheng, D., & Hodges, B.H. (2014) Looking up to others: Social status, Chinese honorifics, and spatial attention. Canadian

65

Verbal communication

Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 68(2): 77–83. Mantle, T. (2013) The Hiroshima memorial that almost was. Retrieved from www.mantlethought.org/arts-and-culture/hiroshima-memorial-almost-was. Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2): 224–253. Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T.K. (2012) Intercultural communication in contexts (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Merkel, E., Maass, A., & Frommelt, L. (2012) Shielding women against status loss: The masculine form and its alternatives in the Italian language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(3): 311–320. Meyer, E. (2014) The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. New York: PublicAffairs. Noack, R., & Gamio, L. (2015) The world’s languages, in 7 maps and charts. The Washington Post, April 23. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/ worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-worlds-languages-in-7-maps- and-charts/. Norton, B. (2000) Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow: Longman. Okabe, R. (1983) Cultural assumptions of East and West: Japan and the United States. In W. Gudykunst (ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives (pp. 21–44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pinker, S. (1994) The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: William Morrow and Company. Reed, J. (2014) How social media is changing language. Retrieved from http:// blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/06/social-media-changing-language/. Sapir, E. (1929) The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5(4): 207–214. doi:10.2307/409588. Scott, G. (2014) Japan’s senpai and kohai system. Retrieved from https:// lingualift.com/blog/senpai-kohai/. Stahlberg, D., Sczesny, S., & Braun, F. (2001) Name your favorite musician: Effects of masculine generics and of their alternatives in German. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(4): 464–469. Stout, J.G., & Dasgupta, N. (2011) When he doesn’t mean you: Genderexclusive language as ostracism. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6): 757–769. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999) Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press. Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L.C. (2012) Understanding intercultural communication (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Trechter, S., & Bucholtz, M. (2001) Introduction: White noise: Bringing language into whiteness studies. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(1): 3–21. Warren, V.L. (n.d.) Guidelines for non-sexist use of language. Retrieved from www.apaonline.org/?page=nonsexist. Whorf, B.L. (1952) Collected papers on metalinguistics. Washington, DC: Department of State, Foreign Service Institute. Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., Cook, K.S., Kiyonari, T., Shinada, M., Mifune, N., … Li, Y. (2012) Modesty in self-presentation: A comparison between the USA and Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 15(1): 60–68. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1839X.2011.01362.x. Yum, J.O. (1988) The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55(4): 374–388.

66

5 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Communication challenge Leo’s case Walking back to his office, Leo reflected on his interaction with Aasiya at the coffeeshop, and laughed at himself. They talked for an hour, first about the tutoring programs at NewResident Support, and then about their mutual backgrounds in grad school and interests in statistics. When they parted outside, Leo almost extended his hand, then remembered Aasiya’s lack of response to a handshake when they parted at the Community Foundation office. He stopped himself. Instead, as he wondered what to do, Aasiya put her hand on her heart and bowed slightly as she thanked him. Instinctively, Leo bowed like he was taught when he met a Japanese elder. Aasiya smiled and walked away, saying, “Bye Leo. See you next time.” Thinking about it, Leo winced at his bow. Wrong culture. He must have looked like a fool. His Japanese girlfriend, Keiko, sometimes teased him, saying, “Everything about you is so American, except the way you bow.” He knew it was deeply entrenched. His grandmother, a first‑generation Japanese immigrant, insisted he bow properly when meeting her friends. Fortunately, Keiko’s parents didn’t think it was so foolish when they came to visit from Japan. He heard later they were telling people that Keiko’s friend was a well-mannered, polite young man. Leo arrived just in time to slip into a scheduled staff meeting. He gave a subtle nod to Richard, the executive director, and quietly said “Hi” to others as he found a place at the conference table. Two long-term staff members entered behind Leo, and Richard rose to talk to them as

67

Nonverbal communication

they approached. Leo was surprised to see him give each a big hug. Leo was not a touchy-feely guy, and he was relieved not to be one of the hugged ones. Richard was a tall, well-built African American man, with a deep, strong voice and dynamic speech style. Leo did not know him well; the executive director came to staff meetings only once a quarter to report on the board of directors meeting, and was rarely in the building or the halls otherwise. He had a larger universe. Some colleagues, one or another, told Leo they thought Richard came across as emotional and aggressive, especially when he made an argument. Leo considered these remarks as he observed Richard’s demeanor. He was friendly toward some staff members, but looked a little stressed. Something about his facial expression and body posture made Leo think he was going to deliver bad news. He wasn’t sure, because in past meetings he had at times thought Richard was angry, and it turned out he was just listening intently. Uncertainty disappeared with Richard’s first words. He was clearly frustrated and angry. “What have we been doing to raise cultural awareness among our staff and volunteers, to help them interact with members of the community in a culturally mindful manner?” His question was phrased with polite precision, but Richard’s tone betrayed a freight of meaning that wasn’t good. Everyone at the table gazed downward and avoided eye contact. No one wanted to be put on the spot to respond. The silence brought Richard’s frustration to the surface. His voice grew louder and sterner. “I remember giving instructions to start planning on intercultural communication training. I am frustrated. Where did this get lost?” The following short silence was extremely awkward, until Corina, the volunteer coordinator spoke up. “I’m really sorry. It was put on my plate, but I did not have time to get moving on the training.” She spoke with her voice trembling, her head down, and a slight slouch in her posture. Leo and other staff members shifted uncomfortably. Richard evidently sensed the mood. He looked around the table and composed himself. “The board discussed feedback from community members, giving incidents – more than one, mind you – where we behaved disrespectfully toward persons of color.” He paused and looked around the table again. “I’d like to see a report on what has been done and is going to be done about issues of cultural mindfulness on our team.” Corina and others contributed to the arrangements to report progress on intercultural communication training. Other business and discussions followed. Leo felt the tension in the room never quite dissipated. Afterward, he was exhausted.

68

Nonverbal communication

The nature of nonverbal messages People communicate beyond words. Nonverbal communication refers to the process of sending and receiving messages without words, either spoken or written. Verbal and nonverbal messages are highly intertwined, and the overall meaning of communicative interactions is usually based on both types of cues. The weight placed on verbal or nonverbal cues to determine meaning varies depending on the context. Research suggests that adults typically rely more on nonverbal cues, especially when the verbal and nonverbal messages are inconsistent (Burgoon et al., 2010).1 Cultural norms influence attention to verbal or nonverbal messages. As discussed in Chapter 2, cultures with a high-context communication style tend to place more weight on nonverbal cues, while cultures that have a low-context communication style tend to place more weight on verbal cues.

Learned and intentional behavior Much nonverbal behavior is learned through social experience. Individuals are socialized from their early stages of life, learning and sharing touch, smile, eye contact, gestures, and tones of voice with significant others. Unlike learning language for verbal communication through formal training in reading, writing, and speaking, as is customary today, people learn nonverbal communication behavior in a less formal way, and use it in a less precise manner (Burgoon et al., 2010). The meanings attached to nonverbal behavior are largely, though not exclusively, cultural. Some signaling behavior is common across cultures, such as smiling to express welcome; and some signaling behavior is common across species, such as avoiding eye contact or adopting a submissive posture toward a dominant figure (Burgoon et al., 2010). Culture adds communicative power to our genetic script, and may even change a natural response to something different. Cultures often apply different meanings to nonverbal behavior (Cotton, 2013). The typical “OK” hand gesture in the USA (see Figure 5.1), for example, can mean in a certain context, “money” in Japan, “zero” in France, or a sign of contempt, considered obscene, in Germany. In the mainstream US cultural context, hugging can mean affection, maintaining eye contact can mean interest, flipping a middle finger can convey frustration. Yet other cultures might not understand these expressions, and have other cues or none for the same situations. Learning culture-specific nonverbal behavior can facilitate relationship building in intercultural situations. In Leo’s story, we saw that bowing is a common nonverbal behavior for greeting

69

Nonverbal communication FIGURE 5.1 OK sign

FIGURE 5.2 Bowing

70

Nonverbal communication

among Japanese (Figure 5.2). Non-Japanese people who expect to meet with someone from Japan can prepare themselves to bow and use it intentionally to show gratitude and effort toward a relationship. Strategies for nonverbal communication can be taught in a formal manner. Popular workshops, websites, and books abound to teach people how to use nonverbal communication effectively (York, 2013). In business contexts around the world, for example, people are taught how to shake hands, because the way handshakes are exchanged can send different messages. A firm handshake in greeting signals welcome and excitement. A firm handshake at the end of a meeting signals satisfaction in the outcome. Weak and soft handshakes, on the other hand, signal disinterest and dissatisfaction (see Figure 5.3) (see Box 5.1).

FIGURE 5.3 Handshake

71

Nonverbal communication

Box 5.1 Cultural moments: A dead-fish handshake Wayne was a lawyer working on a case involving an American company in Japan. Jun was a Japanese interpreter also working on the case. Lengthy depositions lasted weeks. The pair began to know each other well, and were attracted to each other. After work they regularly stopped for dinner together on the way home, but since they were still working on the case, neither thought anything other than professional behavior was appropriate. Neither made a move to get closer on a personal level. The day the depositions ended, Wayne asked Jun to dinner before he returned to America. After dinner, they rode together in a taxi to drop her off at her apartment. Wayne wanted to ask Jun if she would be interested in seeing him. He worried it was not appropriate to ask, especially as he was going home, a very long distance away. He was also not sure if Jun was interested in him enough to even consider asking. He got some indications, but nothing very overt or explicit. He wondered if that was because of Japanese cultural norms that it was not appropriate for a woman to aggressively show romantic interest toward a man, or because she was just not very interested in him. When the taxi arrived at Jun’s apartment, Wayne had to make a decision to make a move or not. He extended his hand for a handshake, and said, “It was nice getting to know you.” He was hoping Jun would shake back firmly and passionately, or better yet, give him a hug goodbye. He thought, if he got some indication Jun was interested in him, maybe he would try to get out of the taxi and ask if he could come in for a cup of coffee. To Wayne’s disappointment, Jun held his hand weakly, and said, “I also enjoyed working with you.” Although Jun thought Wayne was nice, witty, and charming, this was not the moment he realized this. Rather, no chance. He said goodbye and left in the taxi. Things took a turn after that. Wayne and Jun started to date and eventually got married. At the wedding Wayne told the story of the disappointing handshake in the taxi, and said, “Her hand was like a dead fish. No grip. No passion. Cold and lifeless. I was so disappointed because I was a hundred percent sure that Jun was not interested in me.” Listening to Wayne telling the story, Jun said, “What was I supposed to do? I didn’t know that I had to hold his hand back firmly. Even working as an interpreter, I rarely had to shake hands with men in a business setting. No one taught me how to send a signal to a man I was interested in him by the grip of a handshake.” (Story shared by Wayne and Jun – pseudonyms)

72

Nonverbal communication

Unplanned and unconscious behavior Some types of nonverbal behavior are exhibited unconsciously, regardless of the sender’s intent. Frequently, a receiver can detect and attribute meanings to nonverbal behavior that the sender would prefer not to communicate. In Leo’s story, we saw Richard, the Community Foundation executive director, display stress, frustration, and anger, though he maintained decorum in his verbal message. When he noticed the effect of his nonverbal communication, he took control of himself. Tone of voice can be a key indicator of the emotional state of the speaker. Posture and nonverbal messaging can reinforce it. Criminal justice investigators, such as police officers, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and social workers, whose professions rely on paying special attention to nonverbal behavior of suspects and witnesses to detect lies, capitalize on the unconscious nature of nonverbal behavior (Vrij, 2004). Contrary to popular belief, however, research has shown that deception is not uniquely connected to particular behavior such as avoiding eye contact or making grooming gestures; rather, deception is communicated by inconsistencies in certain emotions, such as fear, due to cognitive overload while trying to keep a story straight (Ekman, 1991; Henningsen et al., 2000; Vrij et al., 2000). Nonverbal communication that conveys deception happens at an unconscious level and so it is impossible for most individuals to control. This is only one prominent example of nonverbal communication sending an unintended message.

Ambiguous and arbitrary behavior Along with intended and unintended messages conveyed by nonverbal behavior, some part of what we express is ambiguous. In a multilingual situation, for example, a person might carefully refrain from speaking to avoid conveying ignorance. The effort to remain expressionless presents a nonverbal message, but the meaning is not entirely clear. Similarly, a suspect who avoids eye contact might be signaling deception, but might also just be shy. Meanings attributed to nonverbal communication are more nonspecific, context-dependent, and open to broader interpretations than verbal communication. Even the ubiquitous smile can convey, alternatively, affection, nervousness, embarrassment, or malicious intent. Due to inherent ambiguities, nonverbal communication may need interpretation and reflection to decode an interaction.

Functions of nonverbal messages Nonverbal behavior typically accompanies verbal messages, and serves several functions when interfacing with verbal communication

73

Nonverbal communication

(Ekman, 1965). The following sections distinguish several prominent functions displayed in nonverbal behavior, labeled: 1.

Repeating

2.

Complementing

3.

Substituting

4.

Regulating

5.

Conflicting2

Repeating A nonverbal message can repeat what is said verbally. When giving directions, for example, a person may say “Go north for 2 miles,” and point the way. Alternatively, the person might hold palms upward and say, “I don’t know” (see Figure 5.4), or palm out and say, “Stop!” (see Figure 5.5).

Complementing Complementing the verbal message involves nonverbal behavior that repeats the message, but also adds information. In Leo’s story, for example, when Richard, the executive director, raised his voice and said, “I am frustrated. Where did this get lost?” the nonverbal message might have intended an assertion of authority as a personal message to the group; or, after a board meeting, Richard’s expressed emotion could also mean that the issue had major attention, and he was under pressure, too. Similarly, when Corina, the volunteer coordinator, apologized in a trembling voice with her head lowered, her nonverbal behavior accented her verbal message of apology. A complementary nonverbal message accents or gives emphasis, without actually repeating the verbal message.

Substituting A nonverbal message can also substitute for a verbal message. This nonverbal function can be used by itself to convey an idea. In mainstream US culture, for example, placing an index finger over the lips substitutes for a verbal message to be quiet, or perhaps to shut up, depending on the emphasis (Figure 5.6). Disapproval is commonly conveyed by gestures, including head shaking, eye rolling, sighing, or frowning without vocalizing. In

74

Nonverbal communication FIGURE 5.4 “Don’t know”

FIGURE 5.5 “Stop!”

Japan, when a document is circulated for approval, people use seals of their last names in place of hand-written signatures to confirm they reviewed the document. (These seals are called hanko or inkan in Japanese; see Figure 5.7.) Usually, the seal is upright, showing the person approved the document. However, when a person, no doubt reluctantly, wants to express disapproval, their seal is printed upside down. This is a standardized way of nonverbal communication.

75

Nonverbal communication FIGURE 5.6 “Be quiet”

FIGURE 5.7 Japanese seal

Regulating Nonverbal behavior can be used to regulate an interaction. People also use nonverbal behavior, such as eye contact, body movements, and tone of voice, to signal when a person may feel welcome to participate in a conversation. Some forms of disapproval regulate the interaction, and we can extend the list of gestures of disapproval composed in the last section to include nonverbal messages conveyed

76

Nonverbal communication

by turning away or exiting inappropriately as a way to completely prohibit the interaction. Regulating interaction can also invite others to speak. After a story at the dinner table, for example, a person might close by looking around the table, silently, with an expectant expression. In the classroom, an instructor can “give a look” to the students who are engaged in a side conversation while delivering a lecture, sending a nonverbal message to terminate the distraction. Eye glances are clearly an effective way to regulate interaction. Eye glances also convey many kinds of messages. This topic is elaborated in a section below related to forms of nonverbal communication.

Conflicting Nonverbal messages can conflict with, or contradict, the accompanying verbal message. A person might stomp out of a room, slamming the door, and say, “I am not angry”; or a child hides behind his mother and whispers, “I am not afraid of the ghost.” On these occasions the sender is providing double messages that conflict with each other. When the two messages conflict, adults typically believe the message sent nonverbally (Burgoon et al., 2010). Freud illustrates conflicting messages in his oft-quoted phrase: “He who has eyes to see and ears to hear may convince himself that no mortal can keep a secret. If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore” (Freud, 1959, p. 94). This observation comprehends how feelings and attitudes manifest in nonverbal ways, and are liable to be the truer message when the behavior conflicts with the verbal message.

Forms of nonverbal communication Nonverbal communication takes place in various forms. In previous sections we explored different functions of nonverbal communication behavior. Forms in this instance represent the substance of the communicative act, the positive element that shapes it. Specific forms are shaped by function, but there are at least five physical sources: 1.

Kinesics (body movement and facial expression)

2.

Haptics (touch)

3.

Oculesics (eye contact)

4.

Paralanguage (vocal cues)

5.

Physical appearance

77

Nonverbal communication

The focus here is on ourselves, using our own body and to some extent fashion or other accessories to communicate nonverbally. Another layer of nonverbal communication not covered here is based on resources beyond the body – in décor, implements, or chosen conditions, how we surround and position ourselves and behave in a given environment. Focusing attention here on the body gives all of us the same observation point. In the sections below, we will explore how different physical attributes are used to shape nonverbal messages. Particular interest remains in the implications for intercultural communication.

Kinesics (body movements and facial expression) The study of body movements and gestures is called kinesics. Nonverbal communication scholars Paul Ekman and Wallace Friesen (1969b) suggested five categories of kinesics, based on the function of a given behavior: (a) emblems, (b) illustrators, (c) affect displays, (d) regulators, and (e) adaptors. A brief explanation of each of the five categories of kinesics provides an orientation to the ways body movements and facial expressions are used in human communication.

Emblems Emblems are body movements with distinct and direct verbal counterparts. Some common emblems familiar in mainstream US culture include waving to indicate “hello” or “goodbye”; blowing a kiss to indicate “I love you”; or thumbs-up to indicate approval. Some emblems are specific to particular professions and activities. Naming only a few makes the point clear. Underwater divers, loggers, baseball players, road and construction workers, and police officers all have designated systems of nonverbal communication. All are professions with high elements of danger (or losing), and poor ability to communicate verbally due to environmental isolation: water, noise, distance. For these workers, using nonverbal communication with clearly understood signals can mean survival. The distinct meaning in emblems is what makes them a special form of nonverbal communication. Emblems are designed to replace spoken words and convey the same kind of certain meanings. This is an unusual specificity. Nonverbal forms of communication are typically more symbolic, representing a meaning the receiver needs to interpret, maybe much later. Instead, emblems are signals, intentionally designed for rapid transmission. Emblems are learned, and they are culturally specific. The meaning and substance of emblems may differ from culture to culture. Accurate meaning is conveyed only among those who share the same understanding.

78

Nonverbal communication

Communication obstacles can arise when a person from a different culture does not understand a given emblem, or may understand it to mean something else. Waving to signal “hello” can mean “come here” in Algeria (Martin & Nakayama, 2012); blowing a kiss can mean the food was delicious in Brazil (Goffan, 2015); and a thumbs-up in Nigeria can be considered rude enough to be dangerous (Axtell & Fornwald, 1998). In intercultural situations, a person needs to remain aware of possible signaling behavior, where a willful body movement might unknowingly convey a specific and perhaps unfavorable meaning, due to different emblem sets.

Illustrators Illustrators are body movements and gestures used to provide a visual representation of the verbal message. This form of nonverbal communication mimics the meaning as best it can. Hand gestures while giving directions is a common use of illustrators. Similarly, a person may hold a hand so far from the ground and adjust it up or down, while saying, “My three-year-old niece is about this height.” Unlike an emblem, an illustrator does not have a specific meaning, except as it naturally attaches itself, and so depends on the verbal message for meaning. Speakers are found to be more persuasive and influential when they use hand gestures in an effective manner (Maricchiolo et al., 2011; Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967). Some nonverbal communication research identifies the use of illustrative hand gestures to be particularly effective to communicate size and relative positions, as in our examples (Beattie, 2002; Holler & Stevens, 2007). Research also shows that people use hand movements to communicate ideas to others, and more, to recall ideas and words they intend to use (Krauss et al., 1996). In these instances, illustrators assist to retrieve memory and information.

Affect displays Affect displays express feelings and emotions. Facial expressions are primary, but other body movements, such as posture and other dispositions can also convey emotion. A smile suggests happiness, a frown suggests anger or discontent; a slumped posture suggests sadness; laughing heartily with head rocking and hands clapping suggests very, very happy. Affect displays are prone to excitement. Tension intensifies the display. A frown, for example, is experienced as much more when accompanied by redness in the face, throbbing veins, and clenched fists. Emotion, after all, is driven by energy, and certainly in many emotional messages, we are driven, and swear we cannot help it. Here, however, cultures differ.

79

Nonverbal communication

Nonverbal researchers generally agree on at least seven emotions decoded from facial expressions: sadness, anger, disgust, fear, interest, surprise, and happiness (acronym SADFISH) (Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Matsumoto et al., 2009). These emotions appear to be universally understood, but cultural differences exist, with norms controlling what emotions are appropriate to express in particular settings. Such culture‑specific norms managing emotional expressions are referred to as cultural display rules (Ekman & Friesen, 1969b) (see Box 5.2).

Box 5.2 Cultural moments: Cultural display rule Kenji and Yoko were a Japanese couple, recently relocated to the United States for Kenji’s job. As part of their family tradition, they took a family portrait for their wedding anniversary every year. A new portrait was coming up a couple of months after their move. Yoko found an American photographer, Randy, who specialized in taking family portraits at the client’s home. She asked Randy to come over for a shooting session. Randy arrived one Sunday afternoon to take anniversary pictures of Kenji and Yoko. He asked them to sit on their newly purchased couch to pose for the portrait. They sat side by side, looking straight at Randy, like a couple of students called into the principal’s office. Randy said, “Hey guys, smile! It’s your anniversary picture. Look happy!” He talked to them while continuing to take pictures, attempting to make them relax. Yoko started to smile. Kenji still looked stern and emotionless. Then Randy said, “Hey Kenji, you look like a rock. How about getting closer to Yoko and wrapping your arm around her. You can kiss her if you like.” He thought cracking a joke like that would make them laugh. Instead, both Kenji and Yoko looked at Randy with horrified expressions. In the Japanese culture, showing romantic affection in public is considered inappropriate. Men especially are supposed to refrain from showing emotion. (You can see this in many Japanese movies.) The norm appears to be changing with younger generations, allowing themselves to be more expressive, but Kenji was clearly not in a generation where he felt comfortable showing affection to his wife for a public portrait. (Story shared by former graduate student Yoko – pseudonym)

Some cultures discourage the outward expression of emotions in public. In Eastern cultures, such as Chinese, Korean, and Japanese cultures, the social relationship rule is that people are “taught to control their expressions and suppress natural feelings and spontaneity” (Argyle et al., 1986, p. 295). In an experiment with Japanese

80

Nonverbal communication

study participants (Ekman et al., 1972), when shown a disgusting film, the subjects tried to conceal their reactions when they were with others, but showed more emotion when they thought they were unobserved. Nonverbal communication researcher David Matsumoto, in collaboration with other researchers from around the world, studied cultural differences in rules for emotional expressions of university students in 32 countries (Matsumoto et al., 2008). The team found in all countries surveyed with a Display Rule Assessment Inventory, that respondents changed the level of emotional expression when they were with members of the group they belonged to (ingroup), versus those without a group connection (outgroup). The students were more expressive to ingroup companions. Among the seven SADFISH emotions, sadness was found to be the emotion expressed more definitely in ingroup settings, compared to outgroup settings. This was a notable difference, because several other emotions – expressions of contempt, disgust, and fear – showed little difference. Overall, individualistic cultures were associated with a higher level of emotional expression, particularly with positive emotions, such as happiness and surprise.

Regulators Regulators are a type of nonverbal behavior that helps control the flow, the pace, and turn‑taking in a situation. In a conversation, people regularly send signals to indicate who will speak next, and when the next person may start. Turn-taking requires high levels of coordination among participants in a conversation. Using and being aware of subtle, nonverbal cues adds fluency to a conversation. There are at least four recognized categories of turn‑related signals (Weimann & Knapp, 1975): (a) turn-requesting signals, (b) turnyielding signals, (c) turn-maintaining signals, and (d) back-channel signals. Turn-requesting signals are used by a nonspeaker to gain access to speak. Nonverbal examples include a forward-leaning posture, increased eye contact with the speaker, or raising a hand (Figure 5.8). Turn-yielding signals are used by the speaker to give up the floor and invite others to speak. Nonverbal examples include increased eye contact with a nonspeaker, leaning back, looking around silently, or using a hand gesture (Figure 5.9). Turn-maintaining signals are used by the speaker to indicate an intention to say more. Nonverbal examples include speaking louder, minimized pauses, or using a hand gesture to delay interruption (Figure 5.10).

81

Nonverbal communication FIGURE 5.8 Turn-requesting signal

FIGURE 5.9 Turn-yielding signal

Back-channel signals are used by nonspeakers to indicate they are paying attention and decline a turn to speak. Examples include when a nonspeaker maintains eye contact or nods to indicate paying attention to the speaker. When a nonspeaker avoids eye contact, gazes downward, or looks away, the nonverbal backchannel signal indicates disinterest, or declining a turn to speak (see Figure 5.11). Like other forms of nonverbal behavior, turn-taking regulators are learned and are culture-specific. Communications researchers Sakamoto and Naotsuka (1982) found a good analogy to describe differences in Japanese and US turn-taking styles, saying the

82

Nonverbal communication FIGURE 5.10 Turn-maintaining signal

FIGURE 5.11 Back-channel signal

comparison was about the same as the difference between bowling and tennis. The Japanese conversation is like bowling because: When your turn comes, you step up to the starting line with your bowling ball, and carefully bowl it. Everyone else stands back and watches politely, murmuring encouragement. Everyone waits until the ball has reached the end of the alley, and watches to see if it knocks down all the pins or only some of them, or none of them. There is a pause, while everyone registers (writes down on an official form) your score. Then, after everyone is sure that you have completely finished your turn, the next person in line steps up to the same starting line, with a different

83

Nonverbal communication

ball. He doesn’t return your ball. There is no back and forth at all. All the balls run parallel. And there is always a suitable pause between turns. There is no rush, no excitement, no scramble for the ball. (Sakamoto & Naotsuka, 1982, p. 83) The US conversational style is like a game of tennis because: If I introduce a topic, a conversational ball, I expect you to hit it back. If you agree with me, I don’t expect you to simply agree and nothing more. I expect you to add something – a reason for agreeing, another example, or an elaboration to carry the idea further … Whether you agree or disagree, your response will return the ball to me. And then it’s my turn again. I don’t serve a new ball from my original starting line. I hit our ball back again from where it has bounced. I carry your idea further, or answer your questions or objections, or challenge or question you. And so the ball goes back and forth, with each of us doing our best to give it a new twist, an original spin, or a powerful smash. (Sakamoto & Naotsuka, 1982, p. 81) Such differences in turn-taking norms can be a source of difficulty in intercultural interactions. Frequently, Japanese and other international students whose turn-taking styles resemble “bowling,” express difficulties in participating in classroom conversations in the United States, where the communication style resembles a game more like “tennis.”

Adaptors Adaptors reflect a person’s physical or psychological state. Nonverbal examples include scratching the head when nervous, biting nails when anxious, or tapping a pencil when bored. Meanings are conveyed, usually without conscious awareness, associated with stress, impatience, enthusiasm, nervousness, irritation, and so on. Adaptors are considered prominent cues to recognize deception (Ekman & Friesen, 1969a), which could be useful to the justice system. A recent study of this proposal (Burgoon et al., 2015) indicates that deceivers regulate their behavior, and avoid adaptors that might reveal their psychological state. Deception was associated with increased use of illustrators as a substitute.

84

Nonverbal communication

Haptics Haptics, or touch, is perhaps the most basic and important form of communication (Morris, 1972). Touch presents immediate and real confirmation of the existence and attention of another person. Researchers have identified touch with at least five key communicative functions: (a) greeting rituals, (b) to express affect, (c) play and pleasure, (d) control, and (e) to perform tasks (Hertenstein et al., 2006). Touching as a greeting ritual naturally occurs at introduction and departure. Shaking hands, hugging, and kissing the cheeks or lips are common examples of ritualistic touch (see Figures 5.12 and 5.13). Numerous affects can be conveyed through touch. Common examples include assurance, intimacy, friendliness, hostility, or disapproval. Forms of communicative touch include hugging, stroking, kissing, slapping, hitting, kicking, and so on. Play is a meaningful socializing force that often involves touch. Common activities include wrestling and other sports and games, lightly knocking or pushing a person during a conversation to make a point, affectionately slapping a partner’s cheek, or just playing, with no intent at all. Touch clearly has a powerful meaning in itself, as touch, independent of any particular meaning being conveyed in a situation. In this respect, play can communicate without having an intended message. Touch can also be used with a direct and forceful message to control others. Common examples include commands through touch to stay put or move. Touching for control may convey an additional message, in the act itself, of social status or power. In Western cultures, touch is typically initiated by persons with higher FIGURE 5.12 Ritualistic touch – handshake

85

Nonverbal communication FIGURE 5.13 Ritualistic touch – hug

status or power; persons with lower status or power do not tend to initiate touch. Touch while performing tasks typically involves control, as when a nurse works with a patient, or a roofer balances a partner on a ledge. Tasks in general do not often involve touch. Part of the conveyed meaning in performance-oriented touch relates to learning cooperation and sharing skills. Culture affects how touch is interpreted. In China, for example, adult women holding hands in public is a sign of good friendship, and considered appropriate (L. Pan, personal communication, October 28, 2015). In the United States, same-sex handholding is more likely to be considered a show of romantic affection, and indicate a homosexual couple. In some countries, touching the head is considered offensive; in other countries, adults often touch a child’s head to show affection. Touch is the most likely of the communicative forms to make a strong impression, and arouse the most feeling when misapplied. In

86

Nonverbal communication

Leo’s case, we observed that a customary handshake turned into an awkward moment with Aasiya. With touch, respecting cultural sensitivities is particularly important. Hall (1966) argued that cultural differences relating to haptics can be assessed based on the degree of contact preferred and accepted by the members of the culture. In a high-contact culture, people touch a lot. In a low-contact culture, people touch less. In each, people are likely to favor the customary level of contact and view notable deviations with suspicion (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997). Many studies have assessed cultural differences based on Hall’s high-contact/low-contact dimension. As in other communication types presented earlier, countries have been identified with cultural differences. Designated high-contact cultures include countries in the Arab world (Hall, 1966; Watson & Graves, 1966), and in Latin America (Kras, 1988; Shuter, 1976), and southern Europe (Shuter, 1977). Designated low-contact cultures include countries in Asia, particularly China, Korea, and Japan. In between, countries in North America and northern Europe were once considered to be low-contact cultures (Hall, 1966; Kim, 1977; Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982), but more recently these regions showed a higher level of touch than countries in the Caribbean/Latin America, Southeast Asian, and Northeast Asian regions (McDaniel & Andersen, 1998). State boundaries present a reasonable context for cultural coherence, as long as we recognize that countries vary in the diversity of their populations; and cultural norms, diffusion, and enforcement within the state will be different, according to the specific cultural content. Research suggests, for example, that high-contact or low-contact norms may differ according to gender, age, context, personality, and the nature of the relationship (Burgoon et al., 1996). Broad categories applied to any group, like a country, give us a type, with a position on the scale of high-contact/low-contact. This position, like an average, is itself composed of diverse points represented by individuals in the population and their associations. Arab cultures provide a good illustration of underlying variation related to touch. In general, Arab cultures are high-contact, but this designation applies only to same-sex touching, and not for touching between members of the opposite sex (Feghali, 1997). While it is common to see dyads of men or of women walking hand in hand or arm in arm in public, any touch between members of the opposite sex in public is considered offensive. A guidebook about Arab society warns non-Arab visitors to be especially mindful of touching behavior, noting: The public display of intimacy between men and women is strictly forbidden by the Arab social code, including holding hands or linking arms or any gestures of affection such as kissing

87

Nonverbal communication

or prolonged touching. Such actions, even between husband and wife, are highly embarrassing to the Arab observer. (Nydell, 2006, p. 35) In Saudi Arabia, the same guidebook cautions, any public display of intimacy is considered a particularly serious offense. One story tells of an American man seen by the Saudi National Guard kissing the cheek of an American woman in a car. The couple was interrogated and asked to show proof of marriage. When the guard found they were married, but not to each other, the woman was deported, and the man, who protested, was sent to jail. This story emphasizes the importance of knowing appropriate cultural norms for touching and other nonverbal behavior in intercultural settings.

Oculesics Eye contact appears to be a universally important social cue. Oculesics studies the communicative functions of eye movements, such as a wink, raised eyebrows, or other behavior. Eye contact in itself is a potent communicator. Seven categories of meaning conveyed by eye contact have been summarized for mainstream US and Western cultural contexts (Leathers & Eaves, 2016): 1.

Indicate degrees of attentiveness, interest, arousal

2.

Help initiate and sustain intimate relationships

3.

Influence attitude change and persuasion

4.

Regulate interaction

5.

Express emotion

6.

Define power and status relationships

7.

Assume a central role in impression management

The meaning and appropriateness of eye contact in a given situation is largely determined by cultural norms. In mainstream US culture and in many Western cultures, eye contact is highly valued (Burgoon et al., 2010). Popular books and other media frequently talk about the importance of maintaining eye contact in business meetings, public speaking, job interviews, or courtship, and purport to explain how to master eye contact in these contexts (Ellsberg, 2010). Such books emphasize that direct eye contact conveys confidence, credibility, and trust. Eye contact helps establish better rapport with

88

Nonverbal communication

others. When listening to others, establishing eye contact signals attention and interest. On the other hand, lack of eye contact is interpreted as evasive, noncredible, untrustworthy, lying, hiding something, distracted, or uninterested. All of these interpretations may be so, but not so much in some other cultures. In East Asian cultures, for example, under certain circumstances, making direct eye contact can be impolite and seen as threatening (Argyle & Cook, 1976). A series of recent studies suggest a number of other differences across cultures. One study measured a person’s eye-contact display while answering questions from the experimenter, with participants from Canada, Trinidad, and Japan. When their answer was correct, individuals from Trinidad maintained eye contact most of the time (88 percent); those from Canada less often (64 percent); and those from Japan least often (54 percent). When eyes were averted, there was no specific pattern for Trinidadian and Canadian participants, but Japanese participants tended to look down. These results are consistent with other cultural norms where Trinidadians and Canadians maintained eye contact to signal a high level of knowledge and confidence, while Japanese showed less eye contact, and looked down to be polite and signal respect to the experimenter (McCarthy et al., 2006). Another study by the same researchers compared the direction of eye gaze between individuals from Canada and Japan as they thought about how to answer a question. Those from Canada shifted eye gaze upward; those from Japan gazed down. Interestingly, when they thought they were not being observed, Canadians gazed down, like the Japanese participants. These studies sample the kinds of differences to expect in eye-contact display due to culture. Systematic cultural differences in eye contact also occur within the geographical boundaries of the United States. Some Native American tribes avoid direct eye contact as a listener to show respect, especially when communicating with elders or authority figures (Chiang, 1993; Garrett & Garrett, 1994). Navajo people place high value on collaborative relationships, called principles of k’é, manifest in a communicator’s restraint in expressing emotions or making direct eye contact (Chisholm, 1996). Among Navajos, direct eye contact is construed as aggressive or rude. One Navajo man said looking someone straight in the eye is equivalent to “staring at someone with the red eye of a bull about to charge” (Chisholm, 1996, p. 180). Incongruence in cultural norms regarding eye contact can result in misunderstanding and miscommunication. In mainstream US culture and its co-cultures, such as Native American cultures, one example of differences was found in educational settings. Native American students were frequently perceived and labeled by teachers as inattentive, uninterested, distracted, and not engaged, due to their lack of eye contact and other nonverbal behavior (Philips,

89

Nonverbal communication

1983). Public and nonprofit administrators who work with members of common co‑cultures need to be mindful of important differences in nonverbal meanings that may be intended by forms of eye-contact display.

Paralanguage (vocal behavior) Vocal behavior has a nonverbal component in how things are said, rather than what is said. Paralanguage includes pitch, rate, volume, pronunciation, inflection, tempo accents, and vocal fillers. By the voice alone, people make inferences about a communicator, including the person’s emotional state, socioeconomic status, height, ethnicity, weight, age, intelligence, race, and educational background (Hall & Knapp, 2013). Some researchers describe voice as an “auditory face,” noting that voice, just like the face, can carry information about a person’s identity and affective state (Belin et al., 2004; Belin et al., 2011). Paralanguage influences the meaning of the verbal message. The meaning of a single sentence can be changed simply by varying the speed, volume, tone, or emphasis. Think about the following three sentences. The words are exactly the same, yet the meanings are distinctly different when a different word in the sentence is emphasized. 

What do you mean?



What do you mean?



What do you mean?

There are three types of paralanguages: (a) vocal qualifiers, (b) vocal characterizers, and (c) vocal segregates (Samovar et al., 2012).

Vocal qualifiers Vocal qualifiers, or tone of voice, “make up the ‘music’ of the human voice” (Martin & Nakayama, 2012, p. 287). Tone takes the following forms (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2012):

90



Pitch range (high to low)



Pitch intensity (how tone carries)



Accent (how words are pronounced)



Articulation (how crisply and precisely words are pronounced)

Nonverbal communication



Rate (quick or slow speech)



Volume (loud or soft)

Cultural norms affect the way vocal qualifiers are interpreted, and also what types of qualifiers are preferred and viewed as more credible and likable. The preferred tone in official business settings of mainstream US culture, such as job interviews or presentations, is a modulated voice that expresses appropriate affect, variations in pitch, rate, and volume. Monotonous and soft voices are typically not preferred (Leathers & Eaves, 2016). Voters may view politicians with lower pitch to be more credible (Laustsen et al., 2015). As depicted in the movie The Iron Lady (2011) and in her authorized biography (Moore, 2013), Margaret Thatcher, who served as prime minister of the United Kingdom (1979–90), took voice lessons to lower the pitch of her voice before her first election. Her goal was to develop a calmer and more authoritative tone that would be appealing to more voters. Accents are another notable component of paralanguage. A person may be judged by the “standardness” of one’s spoken language based on accent, along with other elements, such as grammar and vocabulary (Bex & Watts, 1999). So-called “BBC English” represents the most widely accepted English accent in the United Kingdom (Skinner et al., 1990). In North America, standard American English is not as clearly defined as it is in the United Kingdom (Falk, 1973; Hartley & Preston, 1999); the most generally recognized accent is what is referred to as Newscaster English, the accent associated with news announcers on the major television networks (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015). Standard English, however it comes to be defined, is associated with prestige and correctness, while nonstandard English is associated with low prestige and inferiority. People perceived to be speaking with a nonstandard accent rooted in regional, ethnic, or socioeconomic origin, are judged to be less intelligent, credible, or competent compared to those perceived to be speaking standard English (Fuertes et al., 2012). Such negative evaluation can affect social engagement, employment decisions, and performance assessments (e.g., Cargile et al., 2010; Tombs & Hill, 2014). A comment from one interviewee in a study conducted with those who spoke nonstandard English illustrates a possible impact of negative perception due to an accent: When you can’t speak very fluent in their English, or your English [has] lots of accent, it seems they find you are academically unqualified. It is that kind of perception … The way that you can handle that language is a kind of basic qualification, to be

91

Nonverbal communication

qualified as a professional … No matter how good you are, that’s no longer important. (Harrison, 2013, p. 201) In the United States, there is a general recognition that English spoken in the northern states, except for New York, is more normative (Hartley & Preston, 1999; Preston, 1996), and English spoken in the southern states is nonstandard. US northern English is considered more prestigious and southern English is viewed as inferior. This is sometimes referred to as the North–South divide or the “normative North, and stigmatized South” (Bucholtz et al., 2008). Southern speech differs in a relative lack of articulation, slower speed, and the distinctive “southern drawl” (drawling is much less frequent and less dramatic among African American speakers) (Montgomery & Johnson, 2007). Ethnic cultures in the United States frequently have their own unique paralanguage features. In comparison to white Caucasian Americans, for example, the communication style of African Americans tends to have more inflection and intensity, and is more dynamic and louder in volume (Baugh, 1983; Hecht et al., 2003; Jackson, 2004). These characteristics of African American communication style tend to be judged by mainstream Caucasian Americans as argumentative, emotional, aggressive, critical, defiant, ostentatious, or hostile (Leonard & Locke, 1993; Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015).

Vocal characterizers Vocal characterizers express emotion. Examples include laughing, crying, yelling, moaning, whining, belching, yawning, and so on (Samovar et al., 2012). In a situation when someone sighs, people conclude that the person is tired. On the other hand, when someone screams, people conclude the person is scared. There is a debate among researchers as to whether the vocal characterizers that communicate the basic emotions (i.e., anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise) are recognized universally regardless of cultural differences, or whether the perception of these emotions is more culturally specific (Gendron et al., 2014). A study involving Namibians and European native English speakers (Sauter et al., 2010) found that vocal characterizers communicating the basic emotions – primarily negative emotions – were recognized bi-directionally across cultures. Based on this result they concluded that prediction of some emotions based on vocal characterizers is universal. In contrast, a more recent study (Gendron et al., 2014) found that Namibian individuals from a remote village did not recognize the intended emotions in Western vocal characterizers. This result led to the conclusion that the perception of emotion based on vocal characterizers is culturally variable.

92

Nonverbal communication

Vocal segregates Vocal segregates refer to sounds that are not actual words, but serve as fillers in a person’s speech, such as “uh-huh,” “uh,” “ah,” “er,” “mmmh,” and “hmm” (Samovar et al., 2012). Typically, in mainstream US culture uttering a sentence fragmented by inserting too many vocal segregates is not preferred and is considered a sign of lack of confidence (Leathers & Eaves, 2016). Interestingly, even in the use of such filler sounds, there are cultural norms and standards for their meanings and appropriateness, as well as standards for the way they are used to make judgments about the person utilizing them. An American blogger, for example, describes how Japanese sometimes show disagreement by creating a hiss, which “is a sharp in-breath through the teeth, sometimes accompanied by a slight head turn” (Sarah, 2016). She notes that originally, when she encountered this hiss, she thought the person was just thinking, until she realized that it means “either the person doesn’t agree, doesn’t want to talk about a subject, or just doesn’t know.”

Physical appearance Physical appearance includes body attributes like height, weight, hair, and skin, as well as clothing, accessories, and ornaments. Our physical appearance conveys messages about our identity and traits that others may use to place us in a social category or type of character. This frontal assessment helps define the situation. A familiar appearance facilitates familiar communication, good or bad. Physical appearance tends to be associated with judgments about a person’s character, based on stereotypes associated with certain physical aspects (Klatzky et al., 1982). Stereotypes are exaggerated and inflexible beliefs about a group of people, shaped and reinforced by culture. (Stereotypes are discussed in more detail in the next chapter on barriers to mindful communication.) People in general, if not always in particular, are well aware that others make judgments of them based on appearance. Popular books on how to be successful in professional settings, therefore, advise readers to pay attention to physical appearance, and dress appropriately (e.g., Amos, 2011; Henderson & Henshaw, 2014) (see Figure 5.14). Political candidates are wise to dress and groom strategically. Taking one story from an endless supply, one of the Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential election, Marco Rubio, during his campaign in New Hampshire was spotted wearing a pair of $130 shiny, fashionable high‑heeled boots. In the following media frenzy, competitors and pundits critiqued Rubio’s fashion choice: some commented that high-heeled boots were “not exactly a statement of masculinity”; some criticized the image of an “effete elitist,” despite

93

Nonverbal communication FIGURE 5.14A Physical appearance that is appropriate for a professional setting

Rubio’s campaign emphasis on his blue-collar background and being a first-generation American; and Rubio’s competitor Donald Trump subtly suggested that Rubio might have a short man’s complex and needed the boots (Stokols, 2016). While a person is able to control the appearance of clothing, ornaments, and grooming, other aspects of physical appearance are difficult or impossible to control, such as body type, certain facial features, height, and skin color. Yet, these physical attributes may also be associated with judgmental stereotypes.

94

Nonverbal communication FIGURE 5.14B Physical appearance that is inappropriate for a professional setting

Colorism Skin color and complexion are known to be associated with stereotypes and systems of stratification within societies, and divisions between societies, over a long history in many areas of the world. Color-based stereotypes and their effects are referred to as colorism. The United States provides rich ground for current studies. Colorism has been observed in various areas, including the labor market, criminal justice, politics, education, and others (Blair et al., 2004; Hochschild & Weaver, 2008; Lerman et al., 2015).

95

Nonverbal communication

Darker skin color and complexion in the United States, together with other Afrocentric features, tend to be associated racially with American blacks, and culturally with negative stereotypes, regardless of the person’s actual race or origin (Blair et al., 2004; Livingston, 2002). Colorism exists not only between white and black people, but also between different shades of black people. Black and white people, both, have been found to be more likely to attribute lighter skin-colored black people with a positive trait, and darker skin-colored black people with a negative trait (Maddox & Gray, 2002). Another study suggests the effects of stereotypes related to skin complexion is more nuanced and colorism operates differently across contexts. For example, among black people, a lighter skin complexion may be preferable in contexts where material wealth matters; however, darker skin complexions may be preferable in situations that emphasize racial authenticity, identity, and ingroupness (Lerman et al., 2015; Maddox, 2004). During the 2008 presidential primary season, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was criticized for airing an ad depicting Barack Obama with darkened skin and wider facial features than in the original photo (Kolawole, 2008). A later study of skin complexion in political ads during the 2008 presidential campaign (Messing et al., 2015) found, indeed, that darker images were more frequently used in negative ads, especially those that linked Obama to crime, and they were more frequently aired as Election Day approached. To test the affective message conveyed by these darker images, the study included an experiment, collecting responses to images with manipulated skin complexion. The results showed that even with someone with many counter-stereotypical features, such as Barack Obama, negative stereotypes were more likely to be applied when his skin color was darkened.

Chapter summary

96



Nonverbal communication includes a variety of messages conveyed without words, and is an important type of communication in every culture.



Nonverbal communication is not always intentional; much of nonverbal communication occurs via behavior that is learned in the context of a given culture, and may be taken for granted, and performed without awareness.

Nonverbal communication



Functions of nonverbal messages include: (a) repeating, (b) complementing, (c) substituting, (d) regulating, and (e) conflicting.



Forms of nonverbal communication include: (a) kinesics (body movements and facial expressions), (b) haptics (touch), (c) oculesics (eye contact), (d) paralanguage (vocal cues), and (e) physical appearance.



Different forms of nonverbal communication can mean different things in different cultures.



There are five categories of kinesics: (a) emblems, (b) illustrators, (c) affect displays, (d) regulators, and (e) adaptors.



Five functions of touch include: (a) greeting rituals, (b) to express affect, (c) for play and pleasure, (d) to control, and (e) to perform a task.



Eye contact can have different meanings depending on cultural norms.



There are three types of paralanguages: (a) vocal qualifiers, (b) vocal characterizers, and (c) vocal segregates.



Paying attention to how things are said, rather than to the connotative meaning of what is said, is an important skill to decode nonverbal communication.



Physical appearance, such as clothing, accessories, and other ornaments, as well as body attributes like height, weight, and hair or skin color, can convey messages about a person’s identity and traits.



Colorism refers to color-based stereotypes and their effects on people.

Questions for discussion and written assignments 1.

Consider a conversation that you had in person with someone this week. Take a moment to explain the context in writing, and then list the various ways you and the person you communicated with employed nonverbal communication. Use the labels for different types of nonverbal communication introduced in this chapter.

97

Nonverbal communication

2.

What types of nonverbal communication do you use with your friends in a social context that you would not use in a professional context? Why is it important to consider the difference?

3.

Choose one of the following types of nonverbal communication and give a thorough example of why it is important to consider it in the public service context. Be specific and frame the challenge well so that your professor and classmates can envision it clearly. 

Haptics



Eye contact



Vocal qualifiers or vocal characterizers



Physical appearance

4.

Sometimes we are conscious of nonverbal cues and a communicator’s different cultural background, but may not understand specific culturally bound norms in certain contexts. What should we do? Are there any general rules we can follow?

5.

Describe an embarrassing or successful nonverbal communication encounter you remember. Did it match any of the concepts discussed in this chapter? Or not? Why? What is the take-away for you from your personal story?

Key words accents adaptors affect displays back-channel signals colorism complementing conflicting cultural display rules emblems haptics high-contact culture illustrators kinesics low-contact culture oculesics

98

paralanguage physical appearance pitch regulating regulators repeating SADFISH substituting turn-maintaining signals turn-requesting signals turn-taking turn-yielding signals vocal characterizers vocal qualifiers vocal segregates

Nonverbal communication

Notes 1 Popular media frequently introduce the idea that 93 percent of all meaning is nonverbal, and only 7 percent of meaning is conveyed using words (Fields, 2015). This popularized notion of high reliance on nonverbal communication is based on a simplified generalization of two early experimental studies by a nonverbal communication scholar, Albert Mehrabian (Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967; Mehrabian & Wiener, 1967). Mehrabian’s study only applies to a situation where the listener is assessing whether the speaker has a positive, negative, or neutral attitude toward the listener based on the verbal, vocal, and facial expressions of the speaker. Mehrabian himself notes on his website that the results of his study on the relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages are not generalizable to all communication situations (Mehrabian, n.d.). 2 Ekman (1965) suggested seven functions: repeating; contradicting; substituting; reflecting a feeling about the verbal statement; reflecting changes in the relationship; accenting parts of the verbal message; and maintaining the communicative flow.

References Amos, J.-A. (2011) How to pass that job interview (5th ed.). Oxford: How To Books. Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976) Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Argyle, M., Henderson, M., Bond, M., Iizuka, Y., & Contarello, A. (1986) Cross-cultural variations in relationship rules. International Journal of Psychology, 21(1–4): 287–315. Axtell, R.E., & Fornwald, M. (1998) Gestures: The do’s and taboos of body language around the world (rev. and expanded ed.). New York: Wiley. Baugh, J. (1983) Black street speech: Its history, structure, and survival. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Beattie, G.H. (2002) An experimental investigation of some properties of individual iconic gestures that mediate their communicative power. British Journal of Psychology, 93(2): 179–192. Belin, P., Bestelmeyer, P.E.G., Latinus, M., & Watson, R. (2011) Understanding voice perception. British Journal of Psychology, 102(4): 711–725. Belin, P., Fecteau, S., & Bédard, C. (2004) Thinking the voice: Neural correlates of voice perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3): 129–135. Bex, T., & Watts, R.J. (eds). (1999) Standard English: The widening debate. London: Routledge. Blair, I.V., Judd, C.M., & Chapleau, K.M. (2004) The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychological Science, 15(10): 674–679. Bucholtz, M., Bermudez, N., Fung, V., Vargas, R., & Edwards, L. (2008) The normative North and the stigmatized South: Ideology and methodology in the perceptual dialectology of California. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(1): 62–87. Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D.B., & Woodall, W.G. (1996) Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Burgoon, J.K., Guerrero, L.K., & Floyd, K. (2010) Nonverbal communication. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

99

Nonverbal communication

Burgoon, J.K., Schuetzler, R., & Wilson, D.W. (2015) Kinesic patterning in deceptive and truthful interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(1): 1–24. Cargile, A.C., Maeda, E., Rodriguez, J., & Rich, M. (2010) “Oh, you speak English so well!”: U.S. American listeners’ perceptions of “foreignness” among nonnative speakers. Journal of Asian American Studies, 13(1): 59–79. Chiang, L.H. (1993) Beyond the language: Native Americans’ nonverbal communication. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Association of Teachers of Educational Psychology, Anderson, IN. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED368540.pdf. Chisholm, J. (1996) Learning “respect for everything”: Navajo images of development. In C.P. Hwang, M.E. Lamb, & I.E. Sigel (eds), Images of childhood (pp. 167–185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cotton, G. (2013) Say anything to anyone, anywhere: 5 keys to successful cross cultural communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Ekman, P. (1965) Communication through nonverbal behavior: A source of information about an interpersonal relationship. In S.S.I. Tomkins (ed.), Affect, cognition and personality: Empirical studies (pp. 390–442). Oxford: Springer. Ekman, P. (1991) Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York: W.W. Norton. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1969a) Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32(1): 88–106. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1969b) The repertoir of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica, 1: 49–98. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1975) Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V., & Ellsworth, P. (1972) Emotion in the human face: Guide-lines for research and an integration of findings. New York: Pergamon Press. Ellsberg, M. (2010) The power of eye contact: Your secret for success in business, love, and life. New York: HarperPaperbacks. Falk, J.S. (1973) Linguistics and language: A survey of basic concepts and applications. Lexington, MA: Xerox College. Feghali, E. (1997) Arab cultural communication patterns. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(3): 345–378. Fields, J. (2015) Speaking without words: Body language and non-verbal cues in communication. Retrieved from www.lifesize.com/video-confer encing-blog/speaking-without-words/. Freud, S. (1959) Fragments of an analysis of a case of hysteria. Collected papers (Vol. 3). New York: Basic Books. Fuertes, J.N., Gottdiener, W.H., Martin, H., Gilbert, T.C., & Giles, H. (2012) A meta-analysis of the effects of speakers’ accents on interpersonal evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1): 120–133. Garrett, J.T., & Garrett, M.W. (1994) The path of good medicine: Understanding and counseling Native American Indians. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 22(3): 134–144. Gendron, M., Roberson, D., van der Vyver, J.M., & Barrett, L.F. (2014) Cultural relativity in perceiving emotion from vocalizations. Psychological Science, 25(4): 911–920. Goffan, H. (2015) The meaning of gestures: Body language in Brazil. Retrieved from http://hispanic-marketing.com/the-meaning-of-gesturesbody-language-in-brazil/.

100

Nonverbal communication

Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y. (1997) Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hall, E.T. (1966) The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Hall, J.A., & Knapp, M.L. (eds). (2013) Nonverbal communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Harrison, G. (2013) “Oh, you’ve got such a strong accent”: Language identity intersecting with professional identity in the human services in Australia. International Migration, 51(5): 192–204. Hartley, L.C., & Preston, D.R. (1999) The names of US English: Valley girl, cowboy, Yankee, normal, nasal and ignorant. In T. Bex & R.J. Watts (eds), Standard English: The widening debate (pp. 207–238). London: Routledge. Hecht, M.L., Jackson, R.L., & Ribeau, S.A. (2003) African American communication: Exploring identity and culture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Henderson, V., & Henshaw, P. (2014) Image matters for men: Dress for success. London: Bounty. Henningsen, D.D., Cruz, M.G., & Morr, M.C. (2000) Pattern violations and perceptions of deception. Communication Reports, 13(1): 1–9. doi:10.1080/ 08934210009367718. Hertenstein, M.J., Verkamp, J.M., Kerestes, A.M., & Holmes, R.M. (2006) The communicative functions of touch in humans, nonhuman primates, and rats: A review and synthesis of the empirical research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(1): 5–94. Hochschild, J.L., & Weaver, V. (2008) The skin color paradox and the American racial order. Social Forces, 86(2): 643–670. Holler, J., & Stevens, R. (2007) The effect of common ground on how speakers use gesture and speech to represent size information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(1): 4–27. Jackson, R.L. (2004) African American communication & identities: Essential readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kim, K. (1977) Misunderstanding in nonverbal communication: America and Korea. Paper in Linguistics, 10(1–2): 1–22. Klatzky, R.L., Martin, G.L., & Kane, R.A. (1982) Influence of social-category activation on processing of visual information. Social Cognition, 1(2): 95–109. Kolawole, E. (2008) Did Clinton darken Obama’s skin? Retrieved from www. factcheck.org/2008/03/did-clinton-darken-obamas-skin/. Kras, E.S. (1988) Management in two cultures: Bridging the gap between U.S. and Mexican managers. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Krauss, R.M., Chen, Y., & Chawla, P. (1996) Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 389–450. Laustsen, L., Petersen, M.B., & Klofstad, C. A. (2015) Vote choice, ideology, and social dominance orientation influence preferences for lower pitched voices in political candidates. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3): 1–13. Leathers, D.G., & Eaves, M.H. (2016) Successful nonverbal communication: Principles and applications. New York: Routledge. Leonard, R., & Locke, D.C. (1993) Communication stereotypes: Is interracial communication possible? Journal of Black Studies, 23(3): 332–343. Lerman, A.E., McCabe, K.T., & Sadin, M.L. (2015) Political ideology, skin tone and the psychology of candidate evaluations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(1): 53–90.

101

Nonverbal communication

Livingston, R.W. (2002) The role of perceived negativity in the moderation of African Americans’ implicit and explicit racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(4): 405–413. Maddox, K.B. (2004) Perspectives on racial phenotypicality bias. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4): 383–401. Maddox, K.B., & Gray, S.A. (2002) Cognitive representations of Black Americans: Reexploring the role of skin tone. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2): 250–259. Maricchiolo, F., Livi, S., Bonaiuto, M., & Gnisci, A. (2011) Hand gestures and perceived influence in small group interaction. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(2): 755–764. Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T.K. (2012) Intercultural communication in contexts (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Matsumoto, D., Olide, A., Schug, J., Willingham, B., & Callan, M. (2009) Cross-cultural judgments of spontaneous facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(4): 213–238. Matsumoto, D., Seung HeeYoo, & Fontaine, J. (2008) Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1): 55–74. McCarthy, A., Lee, K., Itakura, S., & Muir, D.W. (2006) Cultural display rules drive eye gaze during thinking. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(6): 717–722. McDaniel, E., & Andersen, P.A. (1998) International patterns of interpersonal tactile communication: A field study. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(1): 59–75. Mehrabian, A. (n.d.) “Silent messages” – A wealth of information about nonverbal communication (body language). Retrieved from www.kaaj. com/psych/smorder.html. Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S.R. (1967) Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31(3): 248–252. Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1967) Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(1): 109–114. Messing, S., Jabon, M., & Plaut, E. (2015) Bias in the flesh: Skin complexion and stereotype consistency in political campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(1): 44–65. Montgomery, M., & Johnson, E. (2007) The new encyclopedia of Southern culture. Vol. 5, language. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Moore, C. (2013) Margaret Thatcher: The authorized biography, from Grantham to the Falklands (1st US ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morris, D. (1972) Intimate behaviour (1st US ed.). New York: Random House. Nydell, M.K. (2006) Understanding Arabs: A guide for modern times (4th ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Philips, S.U. (1983) The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman. Preston, D.R. (1996) Where the worst English is spoken. In E.W. Schneider (ed.), Focus on the USA (varieties of English around the world. General series) (Vol. 16). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Sakamoto, N., & Naotsuka, R. (1982) Polite fictions: Why Japanese and Americans seem rude to each other. Tokyo: Kinseido.

102

Nonverbal communication

Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E., & McDaniel, E.R. (2012) Communication between cultures (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Sarah, W. (2016) Does your listening make Japanese people uncomfortable? [Aizuchi]. Retrieved from www.tofugu.com/author/sarahw/. Sauter, D.A., Eisner, F., Ekman, P., & Scott, S.K. (2010) Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(6): 2408–2412. Shuter, R. (1976) Proxemics and tactility in Latin-America. Journal of Communication, 26(3): 46–52. Shuter, R. (1977) A field study of nonverbal communication in Germany, Italy and the United States. Communication Monographs, 44(4): 298–305. Skinner, E., Monich, T., & Mansell, L. (1990) Speak with distinction. New York: Applause Theatre Book. Stokols, E. (2016, January 10) Bootgate: Rivals dig at Marco Rubio’s masculinity. Retrieved from www.politico.com/story/2016/01/marcorubio-boots-rivals-masculinity-217519. Sussman, N.M., & Rosenfeld, H.M. (1982) Influence of culture, language, and sex on conversational distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1): 66–74. Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L.C. (2012) Understanding intercultural communication (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Tombs, A., & Hill, S.R. (2014) The effect of service employees’ accent on customer reactions. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12): 2051–2070. Vrij, A. (2004) Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 9(2): 159–181. Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K.P., & Bull, R. (2000) Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(4): 239–263. Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J.M. (2015) An introduction to sociolinguistics (7th ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Watson, O.M., & Graves, T.D. (1966) Quantitative research in proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 68(4): 971–985. doi:10.1525/aa.1966. 68.4.02a00070. Weimann, J.M., & Knapp, M.L. (1975) Turn-taking in conversations. Journal of Communication, 25(2): 75–91. York, D. (2013) 5 keys to great nonverbal communication. Retrieved from www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/5_keys_to_great_nonverbal_communica tion_15623.aspx.

103

6 WHAT HINDERS CULTURALLY MINDFUL COMMUNICATION? Stereotyping, prejudice, and social privilege

Communication challenge Lavita’s case “Nice to meet you, Lavita,” Marilyn offered her hand with a big smile. Lavita’s work partner, Emily, who invited her over and introduced the two, drifted away. They were all at the city’s quarterly, seasonally themed party for employees, where people could meet colleagues they would not normally interact with in their day-to-day work. This time the occasion was an ice‑cream social. Everyone milled about outside in the nearby park where a pavilion was erected to shield the ice-cream from the sun. The fine day had everyone in a good mood. Lavita quickly learned all about Marilyn. Her initial goodwill dissipated as it became clear this was not a conversation, but Marilyn mostly talking about herself. Marilyn was a new paralegal in the city attorney’s office. She was determined to become a lawyer, had interned at a big law firm while still in high school, and because she was so good at what she did, the firm paid her to go to college to become a paralegal. She worked on a big tax fraud case that drew national attention, and now was enrolled in law school, and in the top 5 percent of her class. Lavita mused on a maxim she learned from her parents: Good deeds prove themselves. No need to promote yourself. Just perform, and help make others look good, so everyone around you flourishes. Lavita smiled absently. That was so not Marilyn.

104

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Marilyn evidently noticed Lavita’s flagging attention, and pivoted. “So what’s your story? Emily said you have a perfect background as a cultural coordinator. She said you are awesome.” Lavita grinned, a little falsely, and saw she wasn’t going to get away as she hoped. “Emily exaggerates. That’s her job.” They laughed together. “I have a doctorate in public affairs and policy. My dissertation topic was on diversity and inclusion. I’m glad I found a job where all that carries over. I use it all the time.” Marilyn looked a little surprised. “Wow. Impressive. I was thinking your cultural background must help a lot, too. Emily said you relate well to community members, right?” Lavita explained to Marilyn that her parents were first-generation Mexican immigrants, but she was American, born in the United States. Although her family experiences helped, of course, she felt her professional training mattered most in her current line of work. Marilyn fixed on the mention of Lavita’s parents. “Wow, you turned out well for a daughter of Mexican immigrants. Did you grow up in the countryside and move around a lot? Were your parents’ farm workers? Must have been hard, however it was. Obviously you are really smart and hard-working. Look at how successful you are!” Lavita bit her lip. She knew Marilyn meant to compliment her, but she was totally offended. Her parents were migrant farm workers? She regretted she was unable to escape earlier. Then, reluctantly, she decided this was a teachable moment. She put on her cultural coordinator cap, took a deep breath, and calmly responded to Marilyn. “Actually, my mother went to med school in the United States. That’s what brought my parents here. She now has her own practice in Westlawn. My father was a professional musician in Mexico, and now teaches music to high school and college students. I had an easier life here than I think you are imagining. I know some of the people in your department, and a lot of your clients, and I think it’s going to be important for you to remember that not all Mexican Americans, or others who live here from a variety of backgrounds, are undocumented immigrants, or migrant farm workers, or unskilled laborers who barely understand electricity. Some members of our community fit one of those categories, but many others do not.” Lavita reached the end of her breath. Marilyn already looked embarrassed. It was not easy, but Lavita felt she needed to confront Marilyn. This was part of the day‑to‑day interactions of city employees she was hoping Keiko’s training could help. “Please be mindful of your assumptions,” Lavita concluded. “Could you do that?” After the party, Lavita reflected on the incident, and wondered how Marilyn was doing. She could not shake off an uncomfortable after-affect. Were all the coming teachable moments going to involve unpleasant

105

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

interactions like this one with Marilyn? Or did she need to do something differently?

Barriers for culturally mindful communication processes Developing culturally mindful communication skills requires prior knowledge of common barriers and stumbling blocks that hinder the process. Previous chapters prepared us to anticipate cultural differences in others that could matter in our ability to communicate successfully and avoid misunderstanding. Now we need to be concerned about ourselves. Important barriers to being aware, or interpreting what is there, are rooted in the human psychological process. We need to observe in this chapter how we ourselves hinder culturally mindful communication processes.

Stereotype A stereotype is an overgeneralized, exaggerated, and inflexible belief toward a group of people that does not take individual variation into account (Allport, 1954). The term originally referred to the thin metal plates used by French printers in the late eighteenth century. By 1850, the term became a metaphor for anything that is repeated continuously without changes (Beeghly, 2015). Current use of the term in social psychology became popular after Walter Lippmann (1922), a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, described stereotypes as “pictures in the heads” that people carry to categorize others. Stereotypes are based on personal experience, observations, and exposure to information about a group or category of people. Some stereotypes are personal and unique, based on personal experiences interacting with members of the group (Beeghly, 2015). Other stereotypes are social and shared by a larger segment of society (Tajfel, 1981). Mass media and advertising play a role in formulating and perpetuating social stereotypes of particular groups on a large scale (Mastro, 2015). In Lavita’s story, Marilyn could have arrived at her assumptions about Lavita’s parents as Mexican immigrants either from personal experiences forming a “picture” of Mexican immigrants, or relying on actual pictures through many venues showing the Mexican American stereotype: working in farming or manufacturing, large family, migrant, poor and uneducated, low English-language proficiency, and originally arriving in the United States without proper legal documentation (i.e., unauthorized). Other ethnic stereotypes are prevalent in the United States. Despite some recent changes, a tendency remains in the media to depict African Americans as negative characters, often as violent and menacing criminals (Adams-Bass et al., 2014; Mastro, 2009). Asian Americans in advertising are typically linked with financial success,

106

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

technology, and academic excellence, characterized as “the model minority” (Sun et al., 2015). Native Americans are frequently portrayed for their spirituality and historical contexts, though one researcher found an instance of Native Americans referred to as “drunk Indians” as part of a punchline in a popular 2014 television sitcom (Mastro, 2015). Hispanics are often depicted in the media as “deviant, threatening, and criminal or as lazy, problematic, and a burden on mainstream white society” (Chuang & Roemer, 2015, p. 1046) – and the influx of Hispanic immigrants to the United States as a threat to mainstream US culture. Some social psychologists argue that stereotypes are developed because they are functional, helping us make sense of the world we live in. The human mind needs to categorize information as it perceives and uses it, and those categories become stamps for new situations until new information modifies them (Allport, 1954; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Typically, stereotypes are categories based on limited facts about the people involved. The stereotype of Mexican immigrants working in farming or manufacturing, and so on, fits the statistics on Mexican immigrants. For example, the statistics of immigrants in the United States in 2013, reported by the Pew Research Center (Gonzalez-Barrera, 2015) show that among different occupations of all immigrants in the United States, Mexican immigrants were highly represented in construction, extraction, and farming (62.6 percent, 1,515,000 people), and maintenance, production, transportation, and material moving (41.6 percent, 1,802,000 people). Mexican immigrants were least represented in management, professional, and related occupations (9.5 percent, 756,000 people) (see Figure 6.1). Mexican immigrants were less wealthy than other immigrants. For example, median household and personal incomes for Mexican immigrants were much lower than for Asian immigrants, and lower than the median for all immigrants combined (see Figure 6.2). Average household size for Mexican immigrants was higher (4.2 persons) than the average for other immigrant groups (3.4 persons). In terms of educational attainment, compared to Asian and other immigrants, Mexican immigrants had fewer people in the household with a degree from high school (29.9 percent, 2,397,000 people), two-year or some college (17.7 percent, 1,198,000), or a bachelor’s degree (5.6 percent, 569,000 people) (Gonzalez-Barrera, 2015) (see Figure 6.3). Mexican immigrants also had the largest representation of undocumented and unauthorized immigrants in the United States, with 6.2 million (56 percent) of the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants, according to 2013 US government data tabulated by the Migration Policy Institute (Zong & Batalova, 2016). Such statistics give a general profile of Mexican immigrants that fits many examples and experiences people have of them, which feed into stereotypical

107

What hinders culturally mindful communication? FIGURE 6.1 Proportion of Mexican immigrants in different occupations, compared to other immigrants (GonzalezBarrera, 2015)

FIGURE 6.2 Comparison of household income and personal earnings between Mexican, Asian, and all immigrants (GonzalezBarrera, 2015)

FIGURE 6.3 Proportion of Mexican, Asian, and other immigrants at different educational attainment levels (GonzalezBarrera, 2015)

108

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

pictures. However, as we saw in Lavita’s story, many Mexican immigrants do not fit this profile. We always need to be careful of the rigid template offered by a stereotype, based on the most prevalent or average character in a group. Mindfulness entails being open to the possibility of individual variation, even in the most stereotypical situations. A person’s expectations and judgments can be based on stereotypes (Beeghly, 2015). Believing Asians are “good at math” supports a positive judgment about Asians; believing black males are “dangerous” or Mexicans are “uneducated” supports a negative judgment. In any case, whether positive or negative, the judgments affect individuals who are being judged on the basis of a stereotype that may not apply to them, for a group they may not belong to. Individuals are apparently aware they are being judged. A number of studies indicate that individuals who belong to a target group with common stereotypes worry about being judged or treated on the basis of their stereotype (e.g., Spencer et al., 2016; Steele & Aronson, 1995). This feeling is called stereotype threat (Steele, 2011). Negative stereotype threat can undermine performance by increasing fear, anxiety, and stress (Spencer et al., 2016). Performance can also be affected by a negative stereotype triggering a self-fulfilling prophecy – a recognized psychological process where the awareness of an expectation induces an individual to act in a way that confirms the expectation (Snyder et al., 1977). Positive stereotype threat can also affect an individual’s performance. Cheryan and Bodenhausen (2000) conducted an experiment with two groups of Asian participants. The control group was asked to complete a math test; the experimental group was first exposed to stereotypes about Asian people being good at math, and were then given the same exam. Those who were exposed to the “positive” stereotypes performed markedly worse than those in the control group. This result indicates that positive stereotype threat can have a negative effect on an individual’s performance, perhaps by putting them under pressure to meet higher expectations. Pressure can cause individuals to feel overwhelmed and inhibit performance. Additionally, in the case of Asians, collectivistic cultural expectations may put further pressure on the individual, thinking one’s poor performance may undermine the reputation of one’s group (Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000). Even though stereotypes are based on a human need to process information by creating categories, applying the stereotypes remains our choice. A different use of categories is possible, based on generalization (Allport, 1954). The major difference between stereotypes and generalization is whether the categories are used as a template to assess others based on their group membership, or used as a guide to navigate the situation.

109

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Generalization relies on past experience. For example, a person learns to associate a dark, cloudy sky with impending rain. If this generalization has been internalized, a person will see a dark, cloudy sky and bring an umbrella when leaving the house: dark sky; likely rain. A generalization clusters types of events, places, people, and other information into categories with linked associations that support larger categories and associations. This is how we manage our daily lives in the outside world. Sometimes a generalization does not meet a new situation. A dark sky may not bring rain. As a practical matter, a generalization may need to be modified to fit the circumstances better, or accept a degree of uncertainty in the assumed outcome. Various media – books, newspapers, television, the internet and social media – reinforce stereotypical pictures of different categories of people, such as Mexican immigrants. This information is the “dark sky” in the above example. When this information is taken as a guide, it can be useful. When the generalization is applied as a rigid template, or stereotype, to characterize individuals, the result can be unfair or hurtful. In Lavita’s story, for example, we saw Lavita was deeply offended by Marilyn’s assumptions about how she grew up with parents who were Mexican immigrants. Marilyn could have adjusted her generalization about Lavita’s parents if she had first obtained more information. Rather than saying, “Did you grow up in the countryside and move around a lot? Were your parents farm workers? Must have been hard,” she could have asked, “What brought your parents to America?” Mindfulness requires giving attention to the other person.

Ethnocentrism The term ethnocentrism first appeared in an article by the anthropologist William J. McGee (1900), and was popularized by William G. Sumner (1906, 1911). The word is derived from the Greek words ethnos, meaning nation, and kentron, meaning the center of a circle. Sumner (1906) defined ethnocentrism as “the view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it” (p. 11). Current examples of ethnocentrism are easy to find. Note the differences in the two maps in Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5, for example. Figure 6.4 is the world map commonly used in Japan, with Japan in the center and all the continents whole. In contrast, Figure 6.5 is the world map commonly used in the United States, with the Americas in the center and the Eurasian land mass shown on each side where the oceans reach it. Some argue that how these maps are laid out offers a subtle, but clear example of the ethnocentric ways in which each country views the world (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2012).

110

What hinders culturally mindful communication? FIGURE 6.4 World map commonly seen in Japan. Japan is in the center of the map (www.abysse.co. jp/world/map/ highquality_map data.html#)

FIGURE 6.5 World map commonly seen in the United States. The United States is in the center of the map (Lencer, https:// commons.wikim edia.org/w/index. php?curid= 1999359)

A person’s values, ways of doing things, and beliefs about right and wrong are shaped by culture. Naturally one is likely to feel allegiance to others similarly shaped by cultural influences, and joined by family in familiar systems of social organization. Everyone is ethnocentric to some degree. In earlier chapters we observed how cultural differences in various dimensions could have practical consequences in intercultural situations. Here, we need to take an additional step and recognize that the differences can contribute to ethnocentric tendencies, favoring “mine over yours.” In Lavita’s story, for example, her initial good impression of Marilyn quickly dissipated, because she viewed her as overly self-promoting, self-focused, too talkative, and was oblivious to her lack of substance. Lavita preferred people not to take too much credit for themselves, but rather share the credit and work quietly. This is how she defined professionalism. She admitted she was unsure how

111

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

much her Mexican heritage blended with US influences, not to mention the class background of her parents. Apparently without knowing it, Lavita exhibited an ethnocentric preference for a collectivistic manner of behavior over a more individualistic manner as she saw in Marilyn. An edge of superiority or righteousness entered her manner toward Marilyn. Only later did she wonder if she had a choice. The story illustrates how ethnocentrism can emerge even in small, very pointed situations, depending on the categories we carry around with us. Based on an extensive review of the literature, Bizumic and Duckitt (2012) defined six core concepts in ethnocentrism, expressing the self-centeredness and self-importance of the ingroup: 1.

Preference for the ingroup over outgroups

2.

Perception of superiority of ingroup over outgroups

3.

Wish to preserve the ethnic purity of one’s own group

4.

Pursuit of ingroup interests by exploiting outgroups

5.

Need for group cohesion

6.

Strong devotion to the ingroup

The difficult part here is remembering that all these feelings, to some degree, are natural, and they help us. Being mindful is not always easy. We should be able to notice, however, when one’s ingroup superiority and importance of ingroup interests over those of outgroups are over-emphasized. Negative attitudes toward outgroup members can contribute to threatening or competitive behavior (Bizumic & Duckitt, 2012). We may be able observe this in others or in ourselves. When a particular outgroup is targeted with negative stereotyping, ethnocentrism may exacerbate negative attitudes, and make it harder to criticize oneself for rigid or extreme judgments, or actions undertaken in line with those judgments.

Prejudice Gordon Allport, in his seminal work The Nature of Prejudice, defined prejudice as: an aversive or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to the group. (Allport, 1954, p. 8)

112

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Stereotypes and ethnocentrism give us the building blocks to understand prejudice. When a person assesses a member of an outgroup by applying negative stereotypes, ethnocentrism is likely to reinforce a negative attitude, and emphasize preference for one’s own group, and its importance and superiority. Prejudice is fueled by being a member of an ingroup, with an outgroup nearby or represented as nearby. Different social categories, such as race, sex, gender, or age, can be the basis of prejudice. Race-based prejudice is called racism, sex and gender-based prejudice is called sexism, and age-based prejudice is called ageism. Allport described five ways prejudice is expressed in action, distinguishing the level of negativity from low to high: (a) antilocution, (b) avoidance, (c) discrimination/segregation, (d) physical attack, and (e) extermination. The prejudice expressed with the lowest degree of negativity is called antilocution. This involves expressing the prejudice against a particular group, mostly with like-minded friends and sometimes with strangers (see Box 6.1).

Box 6.1 Cultural moments: Uncomfortable holiday conversation I visited my boyfriend’s family over Thanksgiving one year. My boyfriend’s family and I are all white with a mix of European backgrounds. Somehow the conversation turned to race issues. This was around the time of Freddie Gray’s death in Baltimore, and the seemingly endless list of other black men and women who died while in custody of the police. The conversation turned to a toxic rhetoric of racial slurs and assumptions. My boyfriend and I were silent. My boyfriend’s mother was uncomfortable, nervously smiling. His father, however, continued to discuss the issue with the other white, similarly middle-aged friends who were there. There were multiple moments when someone made an outrageous statement, then looked for support among those whom they assumed shared their view. It was incredibly uncomfortable. Especially because I felt like I couldn’t say anything. This was the first time I met my boyfriend’s family. Also, he did not engage in the conversation, which suggested to me that he was equally uncomfortable. Interestingly, I got the feeling that everyone else felt comfortable, thinking they were in an accepting environment with other white people whom they assumed would agree with their racist vitriol. Trying to “pass” and act as if we agreed with them was the hardest. We talked about it in the car when we were alone, but we did not come up with a good solution as to what we should do in these kinds of situations. (Kristian, MPA student; adapted from a class online posting)

113

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

While most people do not go beyond this mild degree of prejudice, it can lead to a more intense action, called avoidance. Some individuals make a conscious effort to avoid contact with members of a group for which they have a prejudice. Some people may act on their prejudice by excluding members of the group in question from certain types of employment, residential housing, political rights, access to facilities, educational or recreational opportunities, and so on. Allport distinguished this kind of generalized avoidance as discrimination/segregation, and defined it as a situation in which prejudiced persons “deny to individuals or groups of people equality of treatment which they may wish” (Allport, 1954, p. 50). When the level of dislike and hostility gets higher, prejudice can manifest itself in physical attack. In the United States, physical attack is defined as a hate crime when the offense is “motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity” (FBI, n.d.). A report by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, 2014) indicates that among different motivations that lead to hate crimes, 49 percent are due to race, 21 percent to sexual orientation, 17 percent to religion, and 11 percent to ethnicity. Allport called the highest degree of prejudice extermination. Lynching of blacks in the United States, the Holocaust, “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and genocides in Darfur and Rwanda are all examples of extermination fueled by prejudice.

Implicit bias Stereotypes, ethnocentrism, and prejudice involve a person’s attitude toward others. Social psychologists point out that attitudes can be explicit or implicit (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald & Krieger, 2006). When a person is aware of the attitude that underlies a specific thought process and resulting behavior, then the attitude is considered explicit. An implicit attitude underlies one’s thought processes and behaviors without one being aware of it (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Nosek, 2007). When a hiring manager systematically favors Caucasians over equally qualified black candidates, and explicitly states that the decision is based on a conviction that Caucasians are better workers than black workers, the hiring manager is acting on an explicit and overt prejudice based on a race-based stereotype. On the other hand, when a hiring manager believes and states that they have no bias against black workers, yet tends systematically to favor Caucasians over equally qualified black candidates, it is plausible that the manager has an implicit bias against black workers, and this affects the hiring decisions.

114

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Implicit biases are “discriminatory biases based on implicit attitudes or implicit stereotypes” (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006, p. 951). Research shows that implicit biases affect behavior in various ways. One study (Greenwald et al., 2009) showed that people who displayed implicit racial bias against African Americans were more likely in the 2008 US presidential election to vote for John McCain (the white candidate), rather than Barack Obama (the black candidate). The study showed that vote choice was not predicted by self‑reported explicit racial attitudes, nor was it predicted by political ideology. Implicit racial bias was the most important factor in predicting how people would vote. In another study (Stanley et al., 2011), when participants had an implicit racial attitude against blacks, they tended to judge whites as more trustworthy, and showed a greater willingness to offer money to whites than to blacks. Again, their judgments were independent of their explicit attitudes about race. Implicit bias poses challenges in a variety of settings. It has implications for managers responsible for evaluating employees (e.g., Jost et al., 2009; Lieber, 2009); practices in the legal system and law enforcement (e.g., Gove, 2011; Jolls & Sunstein, 2006); teachers (e.g., Jacoby-Senghor et al., 2016); and healthcare professionals (e.g., Chapman et al., 2013). Detecting implicit bias is a common challenge in all settings. Researchers developed a test called the implicit association test (IAT) which provides information about potential implicit bias. The IAT assesses the strength of association between concepts that represent categories (e.g., black, white, gay) and attributes (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy, smart). The IAT measured a person’s response time in making different associations as an indictor of implicit bias (Project Implicit, 2011). IAT is currently available for free on the Project Implicit website, and many organizations ask their employees to take the IAT to develop self-awareness of implicit bias. Like the IAT, perhaps by careful observation of ourselves and others, monitoring response time in snap judgments, for example, we may develop self-awareness in real-world settings. It may not be possible to recognize or eliminate the influence of implicit biases all together, but we may be able to improve our sensitivity, so we are more likely to search for biases we may not otherwise recognize until after they affect our judgments, decisions, and behavior. Mindfulness involves carefully examining one’s own behavior for signs of implicit bias.

Microaggression Negative attitudes directed toward a category of people can manifest in verbal or nonverbal behavior called microaggression, defined as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate

115

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults toward members of oppressed groups” (Nadal, 2008, p. 23). The term was first used by Chester Pierce (1970) to describe subtle expressions of racism against African Americans in the media. Despite legal developments to protect civil rights in the 1960s, African Americans continued to experience discrimination in subtle ways. The term microaggression has since been used to describe similar forms of discrimination against members of other marginalized groups, based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, and so on. Microaggressions often manifest unconsciously in verbal phrases, facial expressions, gestures, or tones of voice. Such behavior is well known. It shows up often in daily life – so often that microaggressions are usually dismissed, glossed over, or accepted as innocent when they probably are not (Sue et al., 2007a). For example, the phrase, “You throw like a girl!” is a case where a common insult for a guy on the team is only recently being recognized as a phrase that is not innocent. Many girls are good athletes, better than many men these days, and this seemingly harmless microaggression can have a negative impact on how they feel about throwing or achieving in other contexts (Kaskan & Ho, 2014). Exposure to microaggressions can have serious effects on the targeted persons. The cumulative impact of regular or constant exposure to microaggression can make a person feel excluded, not trusted, not normal, or intellectually inferior. Over time, these feelings can develop into a sense of powerlessness, invisibility, or loss of selfesteem or integrity (Sue et al., 2007a; Sue et al., 2008). Microaggression can also be conveyed by an environmental setting – when some aspect of the place sends a message to particular people that they are excluded, not welcome, or insignificant, though others might not notice. Gordon and Johnson (2003) tell the story of an art show poster created by a white male student at Colby College in 1992, showing a picture of the notorious beating of Rodney King by police officers, with a heading that said, “As Exciting as Police Brutality,” and “It’ll Hit You Like a Blow to the Head.” Although the student himself and his sympathizers noted that he did not intend to offend African American members of the community, the poster made many feel that their lives did not matter and their integrity was violated. One might imagine how it would feel to stand in a gallery as the only black person, say, in a room full of white people, viewing a poster of white policemen beating a black man. Or be the white person. It must be at least disquieting. Microaggression has been observed in three distinct forms (Sue, 2010; Sue et al., 2007b): (a) microassault, (b) microinsult, and (c) microinvalidation. All may appear in verbal or nonverbal communication. Microassault expresses bias or prejudice that the actor is aware of – in other words, you know what you are doing. You may not

116

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

really intend to hurt anyone, thus the micro part, but a joke about someone with a physical disability, for example, or complaining about an opinionated “bitch” at the airport, can hurt everyone involved. Microassault overlaps with Allport’s (1954) concept of antilocution: a conscious prejudice expressed in action. Microinsults demean the target person, and convey rudeness and insensitivity. Microinsults tend to be unconscious – that is, the actor does not usually choose to convey a demeaning message; it just comes out. Yet the message clearly conveys the insult to the recipient. For example, when a white person talks to a person of color saying, “I wanted the job you got. How did you get the job?” the recipient may detect that the implied message is, “You must have been given the job because you are a minority.” Microinvalidations “exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feeling, or experiential reality” of the target person or group (Sue et al., 2007b, p. 274). Saying, for example, “You speak English very well,” to an Asian American or Latino American, negates the fact that the person is an American and has perhaps lived there since birth, implying instead, “You must be foreign born” and “You are not a true American.” Microinsults and microinvalidations are frequently unintended, acted-out results of implicit bias. Perception and interpretation of microaggression can differ based on one’s personal identity, worldview, and experiences. Opinions among different observers whether some form of microaggression really happened in an interaction may differ, and even be hotly disputed. Being unaware of an implicit bias until recognizing it – either because you notice it once it is out, or someone confronts you – makes it hard to acknowledge that you own it. When confronted, a person is likely to assert some plausible alternative explanation, or in some cases, give a different account of what happened (Sue, 2010). Researchers observe that the implicit, invisible nature of microinsults and microinvalidation put recipients in a psychological bind (e.g., Sank Davis et al., 2015; Sue et al., 2008; Tran et al., 2016). Did it really happen? Do they know they insulted me? If they do not know they insulted me, did it really happen? R.D. Laing (1970) explored these kinds of complex relationships in nursery rhyme fashion in his classic Knots. The story in Box 6.2 provides a real example, where all parties must have questioned their perception of the situation. In these instances, it is hard to prove whose reality is the truth, especially when one side is an authority figure. The psychological burden is heavier on those who try to highlight the issue, especially if the person was one of those victimized by the microaggression. Some say that overt and obvious discriminatory behaviors may be easier to handle than microaggressions, because they are easier to substantiate (Yosso et al., 2009).

117

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Box 6.2 Cultural moments: She had a strange accent Amy staffs the university internship program. She is Jewish and has a background as a diversity trainer. Part of her responsibilities involves matching interns with appropriate organizations. Once an intern is assigned to an organization, the organization pays the university internship program and the interns, so for Amy, the organizations are important clients. In her program, interns are identified by a faculty member. The faculty review applications and interview the intern candidates. One of Amy’s clients, the county Human Services Department, has a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. To finalize an intern placement there, Amy set up a meeting with the department director, Naomi, and the faculty member who sponsored the intern, Dr. Smith. At the meeting, Naomi asked Dr. Smith if he could tell her about diversity among the candidate pool. He answered, “Well, I don’t ask them to provide their racial and ethnic background info, so I don’t have the exact number. But by looking at the pictures they provide with the application, I guess our candidate pool is pretty diverse.” Amy was alarmed that Dr. Smith did not collect racial and ethnic background information, and instead just made assumptions about their backgrounds based on how they looked. Naomi asked another question. How diverse were the final three candidates for her organization? Dr. Smith pulled out an application and said, “I couldn’t quite tell from the picture, but when I interviewed her, she had a strange accent, so I believe she is a minority.” Amy was shocked by Dr. Smith’s response, again. Naomi, who was a Chinese American, and clearly possessed a strong cultural awareness, raised her eyebrow. A few days later, Amy received a phone call from Naomi, who notified her the county was considering not taking the intern this year. Naomi told Amy she was offended by Dr. Smith’s lack of cultural awareness, and she was considering talking to the university vice president of diversity, to inquire what the university was doing to improve cultural competency among its faculty members. Amy immediately went to see Dr. Smith, and related what she heard. Dr. Smith was surprised to hear Naomi’s reaction. He said, “I am a white male, but I consider myself very culturally aware. I have lived overseas for a long time, and I address the issue of cultural competence in one of my classes.” When Amy pointed out his comment that a candidate had “a strange accent,” he denied using the word “strange” and said he mentioned the candidate’s accent merely as one of the many information bits he had about the candidate. He commented that both Amy and Naomi were being over-sensitive and over-reacting to some small things he mentioned in their conversation. (Story shared by Amy,1 university staff)

118

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Reducing the use of microaggression in communication behavior in the workplace or community appears to be a desirable goal, if possible. Benefits could be substantial for targeted persons, and cost perhaps only a bit more temperance in all of us. Sue (2010, 2013) provides a set of recommendations that emphasize the importance of “making the invisible visible”: 1.

Each individual should understand personal biases and their origins as products of social conditioning or experience, imbued with inherited opinions, words, and feelings

2.

Actively seek opportunities to engage with those who have different social identities, and experience the reality of others

3.

Learn to engage in discussions with others and exchange attitudes and biases; acknowledge behavior and meanings that could be hurtful, or actually were hurtful, without being defensive

4.

Try to be an ally and speak up whenever forms of bias or discrimination are observed

Social privilege Barriers to culturally mindful communication discussed so far have focused on an individual’s personal attitudes toward a particular category of people. Typically, the disempowered in society, rather than those who enjoy privileges of power, are the targets of stereotyping, explicit prejudice, implicit bias, and microaggressions. In sociological terms, we live in a “system of advantage” (Wellman, 1977), where certain groups of people have greater access to power, resources, and opportunities denied to others. Groups with advantages are referred to as the dominant group, who are associated with social privilege. Johnson (2006) elaborates: “Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do” (p. 21). Privilege means you can take some things for granted. Having privilege means not having to think about some things, due simply to your own group membership. Unprivileged persons cannot make the same assumption and take things for granted. They have far less chance of maintaining an expectation for even fair treatment. A white man entering a store dressed casually, for example, can usually expect cordial treatment from the clerk, whereas a black man in the same situation might have to think twice about how to dress to increase the chance of being treated respectfully.

119

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Peggy McIntosh (1988) describes privilege as “an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks” (p. 71), and lists numerous privileges she perceives she has as a member of a white race. Privilege is manifest in various ways. Goodman (2011) relates how when she asks her college students what they do to ensure safety on a daily basis, men have a hard time coming up with a list, while women cite numerous efforts, such as making sure to lock the door, walking with friends, avoiding certain areas, staying inside after dark. Although a feature of male privilege is evident when observed like this, it may remain invisible to those involved. Other forms of privilege include access to life opportunities according to class: access to medical care without worrying, taking a vacation, or having reasonable housing, food, and clothing. Ablebodied people do not worry about access to buildings. Christian people are generally able to observe their religious holidays without taking personal time off, and do not need to request a special menu in the cafeteria to meet their religious dietary needs. Heterosexual couples can talk openly about their partners and celebrate their relationships without worrying about being stigmatized, or in some places arrested, or worse. Privileged groups determine social and cultural norms. Their way of doing things become the reference point against which other groups are evaluated or accommodated; they define what is considered standard, and normal (Johnson, 2006). In relation to gender, for example, the male way may be the only way for new female employees in certain organizational settings. Until recently a standard police officer’s uniform was designed based on the male physique, resulting in uniforms that were ill-fitting for female officers. Even though such uniforms were uncomfortable, nonfunctional and hampered their ability to do their job, female officers were expected to fit themselves into the uniform designed for men, because that was the standard (Garrett, 2012). In relation to people with disabilities, even with advances in public awareness since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, walking up a flight of stairs is still considered normal. It can easily be neglected as a significant obstacle for persons unable physically to manage it. As members of a dominant group exercise privilege, individuals may acquire a sense of superiority for a set of values that appear to them as public values, but actually favor their own class view of normal. Members of a dominant group may feel they have permission to treat those who are not privileged as abnormal, inferior, insignificant, burdensome, or threatening to the good order of society (Goodman, 2011; Johnson, 2006). Culturally mindful communication requires some examination of dominant group privilege as it exists, to help minimize barriers for underprivileged groups.

120

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Chapter summary 

Culturally mindful communication is often blocked by stereotyping, prejudice, and bias. This chapter defined these obstacles and provided examples to help the reader recognize how pervasive they are in organizations.



Stereotypes are an inflexible and overgeneralized belief about a group of people.



Categorization or generalization is based on a human need to process information by creating categories; stereotypes are different because they are inflexible generalizations or overgeneralizations that do not take individual differences into account. Generalization uses categories as a guide, stereotypes use categories as a template.



Stereotypes lead to expectations and judgments about the target group. Whether these expectations and judgments are positive or negative, individuals in the target group are likely to experience stereotype threat, worrying about being judged or treated on the basis of their stereotype.



Ethnocentrism emphasizes the importance of an ingroup over outgroups. This social attitude of self-importance hampers culturally mindful communication, because the views of the ingroup take precedence when challenged, regardless of the circumstances.



Prejudice refers to open hostility toward a category of persons. Whereas ethnocentrism is a preference for self, prejudice is directed outward, typically toward a specific outgroup. Prejudice in action can range from antilocution (negatively discussing the outgroup among friends) to action as extreme as extermination. Prejudice has fueled some of the most tragic and despicable conflicts in modern history.



Implicit bias can convey unconscious messages, based on stereotypes, ethnocentrism, and prejudice, just like explicit bias, but without conscious intent. Implicit bias can be a barrier to culturally mindful communication, just like explicit bias, but it may be difficult to spot, and more difficult to agree upon among the concerned persons in a situation. This uncertainty can produce its own negative effects.

121

What hinders culturally mindful communication?



Microaggression is a subtle and prevalent expression of bias or prejudice toward a target category of persons. There are three types of microaggressions: microassault, microinsult, and microinvalidation. All types of microaggression can be hurtful to those targeted.



Social privilege affects the way communication occurs across different classes of people. Individuals with privilege tend to define normal in society, and the privileged are likely to develop a sense of superiority for their own normative values, while others are stigmatized.

Questions for discussion and written assignments

122

1.

One of your co-workers, Aryan, is Indian American, born and raised in the United States. One day you overhear another co-worker, Kate, asking Aryan, “Where are you from?” Aryan answers, “San Francisco.” Kate then says, “No, I mean, where are you from originally?” Kate is oblivious to any “microaggression” she may be projecting, but Aryan is obviously very upset. What would you do to address this situation?

2.

Can you think of examples of positive stereotypes that are not listed in the chapter? Discuss how these seemingly innocuous assumptions can negatively affect their subjects.

3.

Implicit and explicit bias are fundamentally different. Which do you think is the more troublesome in society? Why?

4.

In Box 6.1 (uncomfortable holiday conversation) we heard from a student being confronted with extreme and emphatic prejudice. Looking at Kristian’s situation, what would you have done?

5.

Microaggression, microassault, microinsult, and microinvalidation are important terms that have different connotations. Spend some time teasing out the differences and similarities between the concepts. Provide examples of each to illustrate your understanding.

6.

This chapter included a lot of statistics about people who immigrate to the United States from Mexico. Why do you think that was? What was the point? Discuss your understanding of the tension between making observations about a group and stereotyping a group.

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Key words ageism antilocution avoidance discrimination dominant group extermination generalization implicit bias microaggression microassault

microinsult microinvalidation physical attack privilege racism segregation sexism stereotype stereotype threat

Note 1 A pseudonym.

References Adams-Bass, V.N., Stevenson, H.C., & Kotzin, D.S. (2014) Measuring the meaning of black media stereotypes and their relationship to the racial identity, black history knowledge, and racial socialization of African American youth. Journal of Black Studies, 45(5): 367–395. doi:10.1177/ 0021934714530396. Allport, G.W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Beeghly, E. (2015) What is a stereotype? What is stereotyping? Hypatia, 30(4): 675–691. Bizumic, B., & Duckitt, J. (2012) What is and is not ethnocentrism? A conceptual analysis and political implications. Political Psychology, 33(6): 887–909. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00907.x. Chapman, E.N., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2013) Physicians and implicit bias: How doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28(11): 1504–1510. doi:10.1007/s1160611013-2441-2441. Cheryan, S., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2000) When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual performance: The psychological hazards of “model minority” status. Psychological Science, 11(5): 399–402. Chuang, A., & Roemer, R.C. (2015) Beyond the positive–negative paradigm of Latino/Latina news-media representations: DREAM Act exemplars, stereotypical selection, and American otherness. Journalism, 16(8): 1045–1061. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2014) Latest hate crime statistics report released. Retrieved from www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/decem ber/latest-hate-crime-statistics-report-released. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (n.d.) Hate crimes – Overview. Retrieved from www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/ overview. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1991) Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

123

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Garrett, R. (2012) Clothes that make the woman. Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine. Torrance, CA: Police Magazine. Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (2015) More Mexicans leaving than coming to the U.S. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.pewhispa nic.org/files/2015/11/2015-11-19_mexican-immigration__FINAL.pdf. Goodman, D.J. (2011) Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privileged groups. London: Routledge. Gordon, J., & Johnson, M. (2003) Race, speech, and a hostile educational environment: What color is free speech? Journal of Social Philosophy, 34(3): 414–436. doi:10.1111/1467-9833.00191. Gove, T.G. (2011) Implicit bias and law enforcement. Police Chief, LXXVIII(10): 44–56. Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M.R. (1995) Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1): 4–27. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4. Greenwald, A.G., & Krieger, L.H. (2006) Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review, 94(4): 945–967. Greenwald, A.G., Smith, C.T., Sriram, N., Bar-Anan, Y., & Nosek, B.A. (2009) Implicit race attitudes predicted vote in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9(1): 241–253. doi: 10.1111/j.1530–2415.2009.01195.x. Jacoby-Senghor, D.S., Sinclair, S., & Shelton, J.N. (2016) A lesson in bias: The relationship between implicit racial bias and performance in pedagogical contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 50–55. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.010. Johnson, A.G. (2006) Privilege, power, and difference (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Jolls, C., & Sunstein, C.R. (2006) The law of implicit bias. California Law Review, 94(4): 969–996. doi:10.2307/20439057. Jost, J.T., Rudman, L.A., Blair, I.V., Carney, D.R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J., & Hardin, C.D. (2009) The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 39–69. Kaskan, E.R., & Ho, I.K. (2014) Microaggressions and female athletes. Sex Roles, 74(7): 275–287. doi:10.1007/s11199-11014-0425-0421. Laing, R.D. (1970) Knots. New York: Pantheon Books. Lieber, L.D. (2009) The hidden dangers of implicit bias in the workplace. Employment Relations Today, 36(2): 93–98. doi:10.1002/ ert.20254. Lippmann, W. (1922) Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Mastro, D. (2009) Media effects: Advances in theory and research. In J. Bryant & M.B. Oliver (eds), Effects of racial and ethnic stereotyping (pp. 325–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mastro, D. (2015) Why the media’s role in issues of race and ethnicity should be in the spotlight. Journal of Social Issues, 71(1): 1–16. doi: 10.1111/josi.12093 McGee, W.J. (1900) Primitive numbers. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology (1897–1898), 19, 825–851. McIntosh, P. (1988) White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College, Center for Research on Women.

124

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Nadal, K.L. (2008) Preventing racial, ethnic, gender, sexual minority, disability, and religious microaggressions: Recommendations for promoting positive mental health. Prevention in Counseling Psychology: Theory, Research, Practice and Training, 2, 22–27. Nosek, B.A. (2007) Implicit–explicit relations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2): 65–69. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8721.2007.00477.x. Pierce, C. (1970) Offensive mechanisms. In F.B. Barbour (ed.), The black seventies (pp. 265–282). Boston, MA: Porter Sargent. Project Implicit. (2011) About the IAT. Retrieved from https://implicit.harva rd.edu/implicit/iatdetails.html. Sank Davis, L., Whitman, C., & Nadal, K.L. (2015) Microaggression in the workplace: Recommendations for best practices. In M.A. Paludi, J.L. Martin, J.E. Gruber, & S. Fineran (eds), Sexual harassment in education and work settings: Current research and best practices for prevention (pp. 135–156). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Snyder, M., Decker Tanke, E., & Berscheid, E. (1977) Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9): 656–666. Spencer, S.J., Logel, C., & Davies, P.G. (2016) Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1): 415–437. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-073115103235. Stanley, D.A., Sokol-Hessner, P., Banaji, M.R., & Phelps, E.A. (2011) Implicit race attitudes predict trustworthiness judgments and economic trust decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(19): 7710–7715. Steele, C.M. (2011) Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. New York: W.W. Norton. Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995) Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5): 797–811. Sue, D.W. (2010) Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sue, D.W. (2013) Race talk: The psychology of racial dialogues. American Psychologist, 68(8): 663–672. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a 0033681. Sue, D.W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A.I., Nadal, K.L., & Torino, G.C. (2007a) Racial microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(1): 72–81. Sue, D.W., Capodilupo, C.M., & Holder, A.M.B. (2008) Racial microaggressions in the life experience of black Americans. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(3): 329–336. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0735-7028.39.3.329. Sue, D.W., Capodilupo, C.M., Torino, G.C., Bucceri, J.M., Holder, A.M.B., Nadal, K.L., & Esquilin, M. (2007b) Racial microaggressions in everyday life – Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4): 271–286. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.62.4.271. Sumner, W.G. (1906) Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores and morals. New York: Dover. Sumner, W.G. (1911) War and other essays. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sun, C., Liberman, R., Butler, A., Lee, S.Y., & Webb, R. (2015) Shifting receptions: Asian American stereotypes and the exploration of comprehensive media literacy. The Communication Review, 18(4): 294–314.

125

What hinders culturally mindful communication?

Tajfel, H. (1981) Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L.C. (2012) Understanding intercultural communication (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Tran, A.G.T.T., Miyake, E.R., Martinez-Morales, V., & Csizmadia, A. (2016) “What are you?” Multiracial individuals’ responses to racial identification inquiries. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(1): 26–37. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000031. Wellman, D.T. (1977) Portraits of white racism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yosso, T.J., Smith, W.A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D.G. (2009) Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4): 659–690. Zong, J., & Batalova, J. (2016) Mexican immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.migra tionpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states#Immigration.

126

7 WORKING IN A MULTICULTURAL TEAM

Communication challenge Leo’s case Leo was impressed. He was seated at a gorgeous conference table with important members of his work team and members of the community in a big conference room surrounded by glass windows looking out on a park. The architecture spoke of the place’s heritage as the rural estate of a locally famous Gilded Age business baron. Parts had been renovated, and the mansion now served as a conference retreat, conveniently near to downtown. Leo concentrated on the people gathered around the table, but the grandeur of the room continued to attract his attention. This was the first meeting of a new task force for the Community Foundation’s current strategic initiative to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the region. Ten people were gathered around the table: five members from the foundation and five members from the community at large. As each person introduced themselves, Leo took notes to capture what he knew about each one. He put asterisks on his notes based on how well he knew them. Leo was glad to see David from NewResident Support among the community members at the table. He knew him pretty well from all his dealings with the immigrant education agency as the Community Foundation program officer. From his own team, Leo had interacted

127

Working in a multicultural team FIGURE 7.1 Leo’s note

with everyone but Jane, from Donor Relations. Leo knew Raj, from the foundation’s Strategic Initiatives Department, who chaired the group. Others at the table he kind of recognized, or not. As with any first meetings of this sort, people were acting very polite and cordial as they settled. There were no side conversations or joking when Raj welcomed them. The round of self‑introductions worked well as an ice-breaker. Once complete, all eyes turned to Raj. Meeting expectations, he promptly outlined the purpose of the foundation’s initiative, so everyone could confirm why they were gathered; then he gave background on past strategic initiatives the foundation sponsored like this one, and described some of their achievements. The first job of this task force, he concluded, was to decide what they want to achieve now. By the first coffee break, people looked more relaxed. When substantive issues entered the discussion, Leo noticed differences in people’s priorities and communication styles. Cheryl, the superintendent of the school district, advocated a focus on K-12 education. Programs for younger kids, she argued, can have the most impact on attitude and behavior change with long-range benefits for diversity, equity, and inclusion. She was articulate and spoke with authority. Leo thought, no wonder she was named by a local newspaper as “one of the most influential women in the region.” He agreed with what she had to say. Other task force members – Karen, Jane, and Susan – expressed enthusiastic support for Cheryl’s suggestion. “Are we in agreement that we should focus on K-12?” Raj asked. Leo thought the group had not spent enough time deliberating other options, but he was hesitant to suggest alternatives; it might appear he was undermining Cheryl’s position. Right when he thought he should go along with Cheryl’s suggestion, Rabbi Stone in a soft but assuring voice said, “I would like to suggest brainstorming other options before jumping into the decision to go with a K-12 project. We have people

128

Working in a multicultural team

here who represent different community interests. David, are there any things that you can think of that are directly relevant to the immigrant population? Luis, how about the business community? What are their concerns related to diversity, equity, and inclusion?” Rabbi Stone’s comment changed the dynamics of the discussion. Other areas of concern emerged. Finally, once faced with an array of alternatives, the group decided they would need to do some assessment of issues the community felt were important. This process lasted through the morning session, and Raj summarized their progress. All agreed to a rule that any decision taken by the group would be required to show that a comprehensive view of alternatives was considered and deliberated, not only within the group, but in the community as well. In the afternoon, the discussion focused on ways to conduct the recommended community needs assessment. Leo noticed a pattern in the direction of the discussion. Megan from the Research Department should have taken the lead, but people were directing their questions to him. “Can you get data on income disparity in the region?” “Can we make maps?” “If we do a survey, how many responses do we need to give us credible results?” Leo directed these questions to Megan. He wondered why he kept receiving them. Megan was relatively new to the foundation, but she was the expert. Leo knew Megan was in her early 30s, but being petite, skinny, and the way she dressed made her look like a teenager. She was also quiet and soft-spoken, which might have gone against her professional image. Leo wondered if people were making judgments about Megan’s expertise based on how she looked. He also wondered if the reason people were directing research-related questions to him was because of the stereotype of Asian males being good with numbers. He reflected, “For the task force to do its work on diversity, equity, and inclusion, I think at some point I will need to bring this up and have the team members reflect on their own possible implicit biases and stereotypes.”

Multicultural team and team processes In organizational settings, a major part of the work is conducted by teams of two or more people working together toward a common goal. Teams are not just collections of people who report to the same manager. Individuals in a team need to understand their shared purposes with others and need to communicate effectively to coordinate their work and accomplish their goals (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). As work environments become more diverse, it is important to consider how to help multicultural teams work effectively. First, we need to understand the general team development process.

129

Working in a multicultural team

Stages of team development Team dynamics unfold over time. Based on a review of studies on team development, Tuckman (1965) noted that teams go through four stages: forming, storming, norming, and performing. Later he added a fifth stage adjourning, sometimes referred to as mourning (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Teams are in the forming stage when people get together to discuss the purpose of a proposed team, determine a decisionmaking process, and how they intend to work together. At this stage, expectations are unclear. Team members will explore boundaries to their relationships and sharing tasks. They are likely to observe each other’s behavior carefully, avoid conflict, follow formal guidelines, and act polite. The task force in Leo’s story was in the forming stage. At this point, the team benefits from a leader who brings focus, while allowing individuals to express themselves and develop relationships. The storming stage is characterized by interpersonal conflicts, differences in ideas or preferred norms, or accepted behavior among team members. Individuals may challenge the authority structure or lack of it that emerged in the first stage. Interpersonal likes and dislikes may arise, along with competition or factions. Some members may resist teamwork and resort to working alone. Some may question the commitment of others to make the team work. When storming interrupts task performance, some team members may get impatient. The team at this stage will require more clarity in roles and expectations to maximize participation and smooth the way for further progress. In the norming stage, the team stabilizes as team members begin to accept other team members. Cooperation and cohesion develops a sense of an ingroup. Team norms for working together and resolving conflicts align with personalities and skills among the team members. Procedures for decisionmaking will be set, and roles assigned. There will be more collaboration and less competition among the team members. The performing stage adds a level of flexibility to team dynamics as team members learn how to get the work done, relying on the strengths and weaknesses of each team member. Multiple members of the team may step up to share leadership roles to facilitate the process and get the work done. If a team eventually fulfills its goals and completes the tasks set for it, an adjourning stage ensues. This may happen in a short time span for a project-specific team, or can occur through organizational restructuring. A team with ongoing tasks may not move into an adjourning stage, and may instead revert to a forming stage as specific tasks and team members change. Team members may feel a sense of loss when the team disbands, thus the alternative label of mourning for this stage. It is important at this point to recognize individual

130

Working in a multicultural team

accomplishments, celebrate the work completed, and provide positive closure. In a multicultural team, diverse cultural backgrounds can affect team dynamics at different stages of team development, especially in the initial stages. In the forming stage, for example, managing diversity may require more effort to develop trusting relationships (Jiang et al., 2011; Shaw & Barrett-Power, 1998). In the storming stage, diverse cultural backgrounds may exacerbate conflicts and competition. Interestingly, some research indicates that multicultural teams may have a harder time during the initial stages, and take a longer time to form and address conflicts, but once they succeed in establishing shared norms and expectations, they perform well and take advantage of different strengths of the team members (Cheng et al., 2012; Van der Zee et al., 2004).

Benefits of multicultural teams Well-functioning multicultural teams can have a positive influence on an organization. Team members with diverse cultural backgrounds bring culture-specific knowledge, skills, and values to team processes. They may be able to introduce unique information, insights, and perspectives (van Knippenberg, 2004). A multicultural team can produce better-quality and more innovative solutions to problems and decisions (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Ely & Thomas, 2001). The following sections explore how multicultural teams contribute to creativity and innovation, and avoid the problems of groupthink.

Foster creativity Organizations rely on teams to identify and implement thoughtful solutions for complex tasks (Mohrman, 1997). Creative and innovative solutions are characterized by four features: (a) fluency, (b) flexibility, (c) originality of thought, and (d) usefulness (Milliken et al., 2003). Fluency refers to a body of ideas, skills, or tools needed by the group to address the given challenge. Flexibility refers to an ability to shift perspective in how a problem is defined or addressed: changing concepts, ideology, or choice of tools. Originality of thought refers to the novelty of the ideas. Usefulness ensures the ideas are practical and feasible. Multicultural teams can promote creativity and innovation in their work outcomes. Experimental studies have shown the following results: 

White technical professionals in racially balanced teams produced more patents, indicating higher creativity in the racially diverse team (Cordero et al., 1996).

131

Working in a multicultural team



Racial diversity was associated with a higher number of new ideas generated by employees from high-tech companies for a technical contest in business solutions (Cady & Valentine, 1999).



Students assigned a brainstorming task in racially mixed groups produced ideas judged to be more effective and feasible than the ideas generated by all-white groups (McLeod et al., 1996).



Researchers who collaborate with others who possess expertise in different knowledge or research areas are more likely to produce innovative ideas (Lungeanu & Contractor, 2015). Interdisciplinary fields are aiming to capitalize on this benefit of diversity.



Compared to teams in which members share a single perspective, teams with two or more perspectives generate outcomes that are more original, complex, innovative, and possibly higher quality (De Dreu & West, 2001; Gruenfeld, 1995; Nemeth et al., 2001; Van Dyne & Saavedra, 1996).

Multicultural teams foster creativity and innovation by gaining perspective on larger contexts in which the team operates, and offering alternative points of view and new information (Tushman, 1977). Members of a multicultural team learn that things do not necessarily have to be only one way. Serge Moscovici (1994) and others refer to the impact of minority voices in a group as minority influence. Differences in ideas cause tension, which forces some consideration of the issues raised. More effort given to address conflicts can lead to creative and innovative solutions (Nemeth, 1986). A minority view can come as a surprise to a majority member of the team. An individual may be drawn to understand the minority position, at least somewhat, in order to reject it and move on. Effective teams need to truly deliberate pros and cons of available ideas and converge individual views into a practical decision acceptable to everyone (West, 2002). Minority views help condition the team to avoid premature conclusions, and critically evaluate available solutions (Milliken et al., 2003). Interestingly, this extended process may give the team more confidence in its decisions and make it less risk averse (Lattimer, 1998). A group with good interpersonal relationships already established is best suited to take advantage of multiple perspectives. Reflexive deliberation processes are easier when people are familiar with each other; they are more likely to contribute and arrive at a satisfactory agreement.

132

Working in a multicultural team

Avoid problems of groupthink Groupthink refers to a mode of thinking when individuals are swayed by a desire to maintain harmony or conformity, and forego a critical examination of alternatives. Without challenging discourse, decisions are more likely to be faulty or irrational. Groupthink most often occurs in homogeneous, insulated teams, when members share a strong ingroup sense. In such groups, an individual may conform to a majority idea even against their own better judgment; when dissent is expressed, alternative ideas are likely to be dismissed, especially if the person who expressed them is considered an outsider (Janis, 1972, 1982). Groupthink is more common in teams led by a clear authority figure or influential leader. Even when the team members have alternative views and concerns, they may hesitate to voice them for fear of being shamed, ostracized, or viewed as a troublemaker (Asch, 1956). Groupthink may have helped cause a number of historic decision failures: Pearl Harbor, the invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the launch of Challenger, Iran-Contra, and a disaster at Mount Everest (Burnette et al., 2011; Esser, 1995; Janis, 1972, 1982; Tuckman, 1984). Multicultural teams – incorporating members with diverse backgrounds – help avoid the pitfalls of groupthink in decisionmaking processes. As noted, when team members are sufficiently different in their knowledge and insights, then individuals can add perspectives that would otherwise remain absent, and help guard against making insulated, one-sided decisions (Solomon, 2006; Surowiecki, 2004). Minority views also appear to encourage independence in other team members. A multicultural team creates obstacles to simple conformity; things have to be explained, alternatives taken for granted on one side and the other have to be considered, and ready conformity is no longer the simplest option to ensure harmony. When people recognize and acknowledge the presence of diverse views and perspectives in the team, they are more likely to establish norms to be more open-minded toward considering multiple viewpoints and alternative solutions (Postmes & Spears, 2001). In Leo’s story, we saw Rabbi Stone changed the dynamic in the task force’s decisionmaking process by pointing out diverse interests in the room that had not been heard.

Key considerations for culturally mindful communication in a multicultural team Despite the benefits of multicultural teams discussed above, cultural diversity in teams can also have negative effects. Perceived differences between team members can reduce the team’s cohesiveness as a group

133

Working in a multicultural team

(Jackson et al., 1991). Multiple perspectives and differences in communication style can also trigger interpersonal tensions and conflicts that can interfere with achieving consensus in the group (Milliken et al., 2003). The following sections address key points to consider to help make multicultural teams effective. In all, mindfulness is the key ingredient.

Recognize expertise For a multicultural team to benefit from diverse individual backgrounds, members need first to recognize that these different perspectives exist. Failure to recognize individual expertise reduces team performance. Expectation states theory (Berger et al., 1983) suggests that people develop expectations about a team member’s skills, knowledge, and other expertise based on observation of personal characteristics and behavior. Communication that reveals unique skills and attributes brought to the team by each member helps the team develop broader expectations and alternatives (Bunderson, 2003). Research shows that teams perform better when the team members mutually respect, value, and affirm each other’s expertise (Grutterink et al., 2013; MacPhail et al., 2011). Mindfulness assists in making a team more effective. Stamping a member of the team with a cultural stereotype can obstruct communication and reduce performance, as skills or values are inferred that do not exist, while the actual capacities of the team members remain unrecognized. Tasks may be misdirected. In the team setting, it is known that the person who is considered to have the necessary expertise in a particular domain is typically assigned responsibility for tasks in that domain (Mullen & Goethals, 1987). Especially in the forming stage, when team members do not have much information about each other, there is a tendency to use cultural stereotypes to infer areas of expertise. One study in this area found, for example, that opposite-sex pairs were more likely to be assigned tasks consistent with gender stereotype than same-sex pairs (Hollingshead & Fraidin, 2003). A similar study with culturally dissimilar partners (white European Americans and Asian Americans) showed participants accepted stereotypebased tasks, even when the tasks were not within their expertise (Yoon & Hollingshead, 2010). In Leo’s story, we saw possible stereotype-based expectations by task force members that drew their attention to Leo, when the expert in the room was someone else. Stereotypes can become self-fulfilling prophecies. With repeated assignment of stereotype‑based tasks, an individual may eventually become the distinguished expert, and the stereotype is fulfilled. Thus, cultural groups are perpetuated and reinforced, and the cycle continues. Stereotypes can be avoided by taking time to identify

134

Working in a multicultural team

expertise among team members, and encourage individuals to communicate explicitly. Mindfulness requires a little more, too. Team members need to consider potential differences in the way each team member expresses their expertise. For example, Tannen (1995) points out that men and women express confidence, competence, and authority regarding their expertise differently, due to different socialization. Women tend to downplay the certainty of their knowledge and try not to come across as boastful, while men are more likely to minimize doubt, and one-up others. Tannen believes women’s expertise has been undervalued in professional settings due to gender differences in communication style. Team members perceived to have authority or expertise influence team decisions, and may encourage groupthink. Studies of culturally homogeneous teams with mainly European Americans found that those who were more talkative and who used reason in their arguments were more likely to be recognized as experts by team members (Littlepage & Mueller, 1997; Littlepage et al., 1995). Better communication ensured their expertise was made apparent to team members. Experts were perceived by team members to be confident and dominant in their communication style. Female experts were perceived as less influential. Interestingly, no connection was found between actual expertise and the perception of expertise. These study results seem to reflect Western norms, oriented to low-context communication, where direct and explicit verbal expression is valued and seen as a sign of competence (Bottger, 1984; Hall, 1989). An experimental study of multicultural teams (Yuan et al., 2013), comprising American students (excluding those with Asian background) and Chinese students who had been in the United States less than five years, found that the talkative and dominant members of the team were not readily recognized as experts, nor perceived to have influence in the team process. Recognition of individual expertise was closely connected to whether the person actually possessed the expertise. This result may not be due strictly to the multicultural character of the team, but to particular East Asian cultural norms, represented by the Chinese students, where talkativeness is not valued, and verbal acuity is not a sign of competence; rather, emphasis is placed on context and the value of silence (Hall, 1989; Kim, 2002).

Understand differences in persuasion strategies Communication in teams is important as a way to influence others to reach a common purpose and direction. A summary of research on persuasion strategies shows six principles that guide team

135

Working in a multicultural team

dynamics: (a) liking, (b) reciprocity, (c) social proof, (d) consistency, (e) authority, and (f) scarcity (Cialdini, 2001a). Liking: People are easily influenced and persuaded by those they like. Similarity is known to increase liking and increase the likelihood of successful persuasion. Similarity can refer to a variety of features, such as opinions, personality traits, backgrounds, lifestyle, and so on (Byrne, 1997). In one experimental study conducted in the early 1970s, when the experimenter was dressed in a similar way as the study participants, higher response was obtained (Emswiller et al., 1971). Also, positive remarks about another person’s traits, attitude, or performance tend to generate liking. Those who receive praise more willingly comply with the wishes of the person offering the praise. Reciprocity: People by nature feel obliged to return a favor. When one person does something for another, the other person feels a “debt” that needs to be repaid. Sociologists say the impulse for reciprocity is one of the most widely accepted social rules, ensuring smooth and fair exchanges in all kinds of contexts (Burger et al., 2009; Gouldner, 1960). Reciprocity plays a role in persuasion and compliance to requests. People can trigger the reciprocity norm by providing a small, unsolicited favor: recipients will tend to be more likely to agree to a subsequent request, and may oblige a request that is much larger than the favor they received. Increased compliance is possible even when the persons are not otherwise friendly (e.g., Jacob et al., 2015; Regan, 1971). Psychologically, people appear to reciprocate a favor, partly, to preserve their reputation; they want to be perceived positively (Cialdini, 2001b). Reciprocity may also be learned as a culturally defined social norm that a person adopts as a personal standard of behavior. Both personal and public reasons produce a desire to be “good” and return a favor because it is “the right thing to do” (Perugini et al., 2003). Social proof: Social proof is a persuasion strategy that appeals to a person’s desire to conform and do as others do. People are continuously assessing the appropriateness of their behavior by comparing themselves to others who are similar or close to them, even when those persons are absent. Sociologists have long understood that social roles, role models, and personal identity are closely intertwined. The ways of others set a standard for one’s own behavior (Festinger, 1954). The desire to be socially validated and gain approval can lead a person to change. An experimental study of littering (Cialdini et al., 1990), for example, found people changed their behavior depending on the perceived social norm. In another study (Reingen, 1982), participants asked to donate money to a nonprofit organization gave more when they were shown a list of what others donated. A bigger list with bigger donations elicited higher amounts. Consistency: People in general have a desire to be consistent in their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Allowing alterations can create

136

Working in a multicultural team

confusion and psychological dissonance (Festinger, 1970). Consistency between what has been said and done is considered especially important when the actions are public. One persuasion technique based on the consistency principle is called the foot-in-the-door technique (Freedman & Fraser, 1966), because change can be applied in small increments, where initial requests are easily complied with. The initial compliance then becomes a commitment. When a second, larger request is made, there is a higher likelihood that the second request will be accepted. Consistency can be used as an agent for change (Cialdini, 2001a). Authority: Obedience to another person may feel justified, due to their level of knowledge, wisdom, position, or power, and we grant them authority over our choices. When authority is granted to another person, we defer our own judgment and tend to comply without critically evaluating the situation (Cialdini, 2001b). A series of now well-known experiments (Milgram, 1974) demonstrated the persuasive power of authority by asking participants to follow instructions from an authority figure that could have caused serious injury or distress to others. A high proportion of study participants obeyed the authority figure and engaged in the task, even though they felt conflicted with their personal conscience. Similar experiments under different conditions and procedures in the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy, Australia, Jordan, and elsewhere found the same phenomenon (see Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986 for a review). Scarcity: Scarcity means a person has less freedom in making choices. When scarcity removes something we think we need, its absence can make us want it more. When freedom of choice is threatened for an essential good, a person reacts to secure it. Consequently, we often find situations where demand actually increases as supply decreases; the value of the scarce good is inflated (Cialdini, 2001b). There are two main persuasion tactics based on scarcity, frequently used in sales and marketing: declaring a limited number of items or a limited-time offer. The limited-number tactic is displayed when an advertisement says, “only five left,” or a store clerk says, “if you like this product, you may want to buy more than one today, because we don’t know when we’ll get another batch.” Limited-time tactics say, “today only” or such. In an organizational setting, exclusive information can have persuasive power by its scarcity, and may be shared strategically (Cialdini, 2001a). These six persuasion strategies are widely established in professional settings, but may pose problems for multicultural teams. A trusted persuasion strategy may be misinterpreted. Mindfulness is important to detect possible differences in the way people react to persuasive techniques (Chen et al., 2006; Cialdini et al., 1999; Orji, 2016). Note that most research on social influence and persuasion strategies has been conducted by North American researchers with North American

137

Working in a multicultural team

study participants (Smith & Bond, 1994). Exceptions are Asch’s (1956) study on conformity, and Milgram’s (1974) study on authority, which were replicated in various countries (Bond & Smith, 1996; Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986). The following points should be considered when using persuasive techniques in a multicultural team.

138

1.

The liking strategy works on similarities. A multicultural team, by definition, is composed of people with notable differences. The team will need to encourage communication to help identify similarities among team members that cross cultural boundaries. Personal backgrounds are likely to be different, and it may be more successful to identify similarities in shared goals and aspirations related to group tasks.

2.

Also in the liking strategy, praise is used as a tactic for persuasion. However, cultural background can influence how a person responds to praise. Different cultural norms regarding praise can make a person uncomfortable when giving and receiving it, rather than conciliatory. For example, a cross-cultural study found that Americans gave and received compliments far more frequently than Japanese (Barnlund & Araki, 1985). Americans gave more direct and frank praise, using superlatives, whereas the Japanese compliments were less direct and more modest. Japanese participants preferred to express their admiration nonverbally and to a third party. These differences are partly related to high-context versus low-context communication styles in the two cultures, one favoring implicit, the other explicit meanings (Hall, 1989). The differences also correspond to the collectivistic nature of Japanese culture, emphasizing harmonious relations. US culture is more individualistic, favoring individual accomplishments and explicit confirmation of an individual’s contributions (Hofstede et al., 2010). In a multicultural team, a person from a high-context, collectivistic culture might feel troubled and overwhelmed by what is perceived as frequent and excessive praising by persons from a low-context, individualistic culture. In a reverse situation, members from a low-context, individualistic culture can feel equally troubled by a lack of explicit recognition. Mindfulness is important to ensure the liking strategy of persuasion works as intended.

3.

Individuals from a more collectivistic culture are more likely to comply with a request when they see their peers have a history of compliance, suggesting a stronger effect for the social proof principle of persuasion. In contrast, individuals from a more individualistic culture are more likely to be concerned with their own

Working in a multicultural team

compliance history, suggesting a stronger effect for the consistency principle of persuasion (Cialdini et al., 1999; Orji, 2016). 4.

Both liking and reciprocity principles appear to be active in the tendency for US managers to use reasoning and friendliness in team building, rather than simple authority to demand compliance. Give and take, and a welcoming demeanor reinforce a personal relationship. In contrast, Japanese managers tend to provide fewer reasons for their directions, and employ a forceful and demanding manner based on the authority principle of persuasion (Taylor & Sullivan, 1993). Lower power distance may underlie US managers’ preference for a persuasion strategy that emphasizes smaller psychological distance between themselves and subordinates. Higher power distance may be a factor in the tendency for Japanese managers to rely on authority to gain compliance.

Address conflict The storming stage of team development is characterized by interpersonal conflicts. Teams that consist of people who differ from each other in significant ways tend to have higher levels of conflict and lower levels of cohesion compared to more homogeneous groups (Jackson et al., 1991; Jehn et al., 1997). Members of a multicultural team are more likely to have lower levels of satisfaction with the group (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Managing conflict requires more attention in a multicultural team. Conflict is conceptualized as “an interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities (i.e., individual, group, organization, etc.)” (Rahim, 2002, p. 207). At least six conflict conditions have been identified: 1.

When an individual (etc.) is required to engage in activities not congruent with the individual’s perceived needs or interests

2.

When an individual’s behavioral preference is incompatible with the other’s preference

3.

When a resource is scarce, and cannot fully satisfy the needs of both parties

4.

When an individual’s attitudes, values, skills, or goals are incompatible with those of others

5.

When an individual’s preferences in how to work together differ from the other’s preferences

139

Working in a multicultural team

6.

When the outcome is interdependent with the performance of all parties involved

Conflict is generally perceived as damaging to social relationships. However, conflict is also a communicative act capable of being turned to the advantage of the group. Issues addressed appropriately can lead to positive outcomes, and lead to creative problem-solving and decisionmaking (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). To address and manage conflict effectively, it is important to recognize the different types of conflict and how they affect team processes. A simple format to distinguish types of conflict looks at three domains: relationship conflicts, involving personal interests, values, politics, tastes, and styles that shape our interactions and define the emotional quality of relationships; task conflicts, involving differences in viewpoints and opinions related to the tasks at hand; and process conflicts, involving how tasks should be accomplished, including duty and resource allocation, procedures, and policies. Each domain incorporates more specific conditions, as in the numbered list of conflict conditions identified above. Team members need to learn to address different types of conflict constructively. Task and process conflicts are most prone to generate heated discussions and personal agitation, which can then lead to relationship conflicts with stronger personal emotions. In a multicultural team, relationship conflicts can occur more easily, due to notable personal differences. When handled appropriately, task and process conflicts can turn into assets for the team, without generating more damaging relationship conflicts (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Figure 7.2 illustrates five basic conflict-handling styles, based on two underlying psychological dimensions: (a) concern for self, and (b) concern for others. The horizontal scale represents the degree to which a person attempts to satisfy others; the vertical dimension indicates the degree to which a person attempts to satisfy self (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979; Thomas, 1979). The diagram results in four quadrants and a fifth position in the center. The five basic conflict‑handling styles – avoiding, obliging, dominating, compromising, and integrating – are discussed below. Avoiding (low self-concern, low other-concern) designates action to physically or psychologically remove oneself from the conflict situation. An individual might deny the conflict exists or refuse to think about it, as if there is no conflict; or change the topic, make irrelevant remarks, or laugh it away. Avoidance is typical when an individual feels the source of conflict has no serious consequences. For practical purposes, no objections are necessary. This style can be effective when dealing with trivial issues or when the team needs a cooling-off period. This style is inappropriate when the topic is

140

Working in a multicultural team

Dominating

Concern for Other

HIGH

Compromising

Avoiding LOW

FIGURE 7.2 Five conflicthandling styles

Integrating

Obliging Concern for Other

HIGH

important for certain members of the team, or when the team has a responsibility to make informed decisions and accomplish set tasks. Obliging (low self-concern, high other-concern) designates action to accommodate and give in to the other. An individual might play down differences and emphasize commonalities in opposing positions to justify accommodation. This style can be effective when an issue is clearly important to other team members, and not so much for oneself. The benefit of avoiding conflict outweighs the loss to one’s own interests. This style is inappropriate when the decision has serious consequences for the team, or an individual feels strongly that their position is right or the other’s position is wrong. Dominating (high self-concern, low other-concern) designates action to win one’s own position, with little regard for the interests of others. Power frequently fuels this style of handling conflict. A person using this style to address conflict is likely to be seen by others as competitive, aggressive, confrontational, and controlling. This style can be appropriate when the issues involved require expedited decisionmaking, or determination to follow through with an unpopular course of action. This style is inappropriate when the issue is complex and the decision requires careful deliberation by all team members. Further, a dominating style in handling conflict can also be a problem when multiple members of the team adopt the same approach. In this case, deadlock can turn especially heated, without reaching a solution. Finally, power combined with a dominating style to handle conflict leads the team directly into groupthink, and leaves dissatisfaction unresolved to brew among the team members. Compromising (intermediate self-concern, intermediate otherconcern) designates action that moves closer to the other’s position by giving up something, aiming to reach a mutually acceptable solution. This style is useful when the parties involved are mutually

141

Working in a multicultural team

exclusive (e.g., labor and management), and have equal power to influence the situation. In an impasse, if consensus seems impossible, the parties may require any solution over none, and be prepared to compromise their positions. This style is inappropriate for complex problems that require long-term creative solutions. Integrating (high self-concern, high other-concern) designates action to reach a win–win solution for all parties. This style of handling conflict is probably the most intellectually challenging, requiring openness to different ideas and an active exchange of information. The parties shape a cooperative relationship to handle the conflict. This style is useful in dealing with complex issues, where certainty on any side is incomplete, and synthesis of different ideas may be helpful to get a clearer view. Utilizing this style, team members can capitalize on different skills, information sources, and other resources available to individual team members. Research suggests an integrative style is associated with relational satisfaction, and supervisors who use this style gain more compliance from subordinates (Lee, 2009). A multicultural team may have a positive edge here. Cultural norms influence how conflict-handling styles work, and when they are considered appropriate. Mindfulness is important to detect potential differences in how individuals respond. Again, notable distinctions occur between collectivistic versus individualistic cultures. Study results make the following points:

142

1.

A collectivistic culture tends to be less confrontational, with a higher preference for compromising and integrating (Cai & Fink, 2002; Chua & Gudykunst, 1987)

2.

Individualistic US culture tends toward a dominating style, in comparison to collectivistic cultures like Japan or Korea (TingToomey et al., 1991). In China and Taiwan, also more collectivistic, obliging and avoiding styles are more common

3.

Among US ethnic groups – African, European, Hispanic, and Asian – greater use of the avoiding style was observed among Hispanic and Asian Americans (Ting-Toomey et al., 2000). Asian and African Americans with a weaker “American” identity also used the avoiding style more than other groups

4.

Teams with a more collectivistic cultural orientation and lower power distance preferred an integrating style of handling conflict, and a negative preference for avoiding and dominating styles. Teams with a more individualistic cultural orientation and higher power distance showed a preference for the avoiding style (Boros¸ et al., 2010)

Working in a multicultural team

These results indicate that various cultural orientations can affect how team members employ and respond to conflict-handling styles (see Box 7.1). Successfully managing conflict is essential to effective team performance. Multicultural teams show strengths in conflict resolution when they focus on sharing information to bridge cultural boundaries and integrate perspectives.

Box 7.1 Cultural moments: Conflict over deciding the conference paper presenter In graduate school, I was involved in a research team, consisting of myself (a Caucasian female), a Caucasian male who was the statistician, one Japanese female student, and one Taiwanese female student. Once we completed the project, we wrote a paper and it was accepted for presentation at a national conference. It was the first conference presentation for all of us and we were all excited at the opportunity, but when we discussed who would actually present, things got very strange. We agreed that the Caucasian male student should be one of the presenters, since he could talk about the methods. He did not feel comfortable being a solo presenter, though, because the topic was not in his field of expertise. I wanted to be another presenter, and I thought it would be appropriate, because I was another native English speaker on the team. I did not want to offend the two international students on the team by nominating myself as a presenter, so I just tried to make a case that we should have two presenters, one who can speak on the research topic and another on the methods, hoping they would nominate me. The Japanese student, however, said, “I think all of us should have the opportunity to present.” I objected. It would be awkward to have four people on the podium. Then the Taiwanese student said she did not feel comfortable presenting, but at the same time, did not want to be the only one on the team who would not be presenting. I restated my position that we should have just two presenters, and it should be either me or the Japanese student, whose English was good. The Japanese student kept repeating, “I think all of us should have the opportunity to present.” After several iterations of the same conversation, I just gave up my desire to be a presenter, and asked the Japanese student if she would like to present. She stopped her mantra, “I think all of us should have the opportunity to present,” and said “Yes.” I wonder if she used an “avoiding” conflict-handling style to get what she wanted, while I resorted to my usual “obliging” conflict-handling style to maintain good relationships within the team. I also wonder how much of this interaction was cultural versus personal. (Anonymous; adapted from a student reflection paper)

143

Working in a multicultural team

Chapter summary 

As work environments in public and nonprofit organizations become more diverse, multicultural teams are more common.



Teams develop over time through four stages: forming, storming, norming, and performing. The cultural backgrounds of team members may affect dynamics at each stage of development.



Multicultural teams show advantages in producing innovative solutions, and have an in‑built resistance to groupthink.



Cultural stereotypes can foul team processes. Members of multicultural teams need to make special efforts to recognize the expertise and position of each team member.



Six principles of persuasion – liking, reciprocity, social proof, consistency, authority, and scarcity – operate differently in different cultures. Mindful communication is necessary to recognize when persuasion is not working as intended.



Conflict can produce positive results. Five common conflicthandling styles are available: avoiding, obliging, dominating, compromising, and integrating. Again, mindful communication is necessary to recognize when efforts to manage conflict are not working as intended.

Questions for discussion and written assignments

144

1.

Observe a small group interact in at least one discussion. Take notes on what you observe. What are the norms of the group you infer from your observation? How do you see the cultural backgrounds of the group members might influence the norms?

2.

Think about a team you have been involved with since the formation of the group. Describe the phases in that team’s development as you recall. Did it follow the stages of team development outlined in this chapter? How?

3.

Can you think of a situation when your team fell into groupthink? Describe how it happened and why.

Working in a multicultural team

4.

Think of a situation when the minority members of a group influenced the group process and outcome. Describe how it happened.

5.

Select a team you belong to. List the names of the people in the team and identify the expertise of each one of the members in the team. Discuss how individual expertise is recognized and utilized in the team process. Think about several situations where you had to use persuasion. What kinds of persuasive strategies did you use?

6.

Think of a situation where you had conflict with your friends or your team members. What kinds of conflict-handling style did you use? Can you identify your preference for a type of conflicthandling style? Do you see any cultural influence on your preferred conflict-handling styles?

Key words adjourning authority avoiding compromising conflict conflict-handling styles consistency dominating expectation states theory foot-in-the-door technique forming groupthink integrating liking

limited-number tactic limited-time tactics minority influence norming obliging performing persuasion strategies process conflict reciprocity relationship conflict scarcity social proof storming task conflict

References Asch, S.E. (1956) Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9): 1–70. doi:10.1037/h0093718. Barnlund, D.C., & Araki, S. (1985) Intercultural encounters: The management of compliments by Japanese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(1): 9–26. doi:10.1177/0022002185016001002. Berger, J., Wagner, D.G., & Zelditch, M. (1983) Expectation states theory: The status of a research program. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

145

Working in a multicultural team

Bond, R., & Smith, P.B. (1996) Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1): 111–137. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.119.1.111. Boros¸, S., Meslec, N., Curs¸eu, P.L., & Emons, W. (2010) Struggles for cooperation: Conflict resolution strategies in multicultural groups. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(5): 539–554. doi:10.1108/02683941011048418. Bottger, P.C. (1984) Expertise and air time as bases of actual and perceived influence in problem solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2): 214–221. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.214. Bunderson, J.S. (2003) Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4): 557–591. Burger, J.M., Sanchez, J., Imberi, J.E., & Grande, L.R. (2009) The norm of reciprocity as an internalized social norm: Returning favors even when no one finds out. Social Influence, 4(1): 11–17. Burnette, J.L., Pollack, J.M., & Forsyth, D.R. (2011) Leadership in extreme contexts: A groupthink analysis of the May 1996 Mount Everest disaster. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(4): 29–40. Byrne, D. (1997) An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(3): 417–431. Cady, S.H., & Valentine, J. (1999) Team innovation and perceptions of consideration: What difference does diversity make? Small Group Research, 30 (6): 730–750. doi:10.1177/104649649903000604. Cai, D., & Fink, E. (2002) Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists. Communication Monographs, 69(1): 67–87. Chen, S.X., Hui, N.H.H., Bond, M.H., Sit, A.Y.F., Wong, S., Chow, V.S.Y., … Law, R.W.M. (2006) Reexamining personal, social, and cultural influences on compliance behavior in the United States, Poland, and Hong Kong. Journal of Social Psychology, 146(2): 223–244. Cheng, C.Y., Chua, R.Y., Morris, M.W., & Lee, L. (2012) Finding the right mix: How the composition of self-managing multicultural teams’ cultural value orientation influences performance over time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3): 389–411. Chua, E.G., & Gudykunst, W.B. (1987) Conflict resolution styles in low- and high-context cultures. Communication Research Reports, 4(1): 32–37. Cialdini, R.B. (2001a) Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9): 72–79. Cialdini, R.B. (2001b) Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., & Kallgren, C.A. (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6): 1015–1026. Cialdini, R.B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D.W., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999) Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10): 1242–1253. Cordero, R., DiTomaso, N., & Farris, G.F. (1996) Gender and race/ethnic composition of technical work groups: Relationship to creative productivity and morale. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 13(3/4): 205–222.

146

Working in a multicultural team

De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. (2003) Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 741–749. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741. De Dreu, C.K.W., & West, M.A. (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6): 1191–1201. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.86.6.1191. Earley, P.C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000) Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(1): 26–49. Ely, R.J., & Thomas, D.A. (2001) Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2): 229–273. Emswiller, T., Deaux, K., & Willits, J.E. (1971) Similarity, sex and requests for small favors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1(3): 284–291. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1971.tb00367.x. Esser, J.K. (1995) Groupthink from Pearl Harbor to the Challenger: Failure of decision-making groups. Beaumont, TX: Lamar University-Beaumont. Festinger, L. (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Indianapolis, IL: Bobbs-Merrill. Festinger, L. (1970) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Freedman, J.L., & Fraser, S.C. (1966) Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (2): 195–202. Gouldner, A.W. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2): 161–178. doi:10.2307/2092623. Gruenfeld, D.H. (1995) Status ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. supreme court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1): 5–20. Grutterink, H., Van der Vegt, G.S., Molleman, E., & Jehn, K.A. (2013) Reciprocal expertise affirmation and shared expertise perceptions in work teams: Their implications for coordinated action and team performance. Applied Psychology, 62(3): 359–381. Hall, E.T. (1989) Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books. Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Hollingshead, A.B., & Fraidin, S.N. (2003) Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4): 355–363. doi:10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00549-00548. Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D.M., Julin, J.A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991) Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5): 675–689. doi:10.1037/0021-9010. 76.5.675. Jacob, C., Guéguen, N., & Boulbry, G. (2015) Effect of an unexpected small favor on compliance with a survey request. Journal of Business Research, 68(1): 56–59. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.05.008. Janis, I.L. (1972) Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Janis, I.L. (1982) Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

147

Working in a multicultural team

Jehn, K.A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S.M.B. (1997) To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4): 287–305. Jehn, K.A., & Mannix, E.A. (2001) The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 238–251. Jiang, C.X., Chua, R.Y.J., Kotabe, M., & Murray, J.Y. (2011) Effects of cultural ethnicity, firm size, and firm age on senior executives’ trust in their overseas business partners: Evidence from China. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(9): 1150–1173. Kim, H.S. (2002) We talk, therefore we think? A cultural analysis of the effect of talking on thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4): 828–842. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.828. Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Ilgen, D.R. (2006) Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3): 77–124. Lattimer, R.L. (1998) The case for diversity in global business, and the impact of diversity on team performance. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 8(2): 3–17. Lee, K.L. (2009) An examination between the relationship of conflict management styles and employees’ satisfaction with supervision. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(9): 11–25. Littlepage, G.E., & Mueller, A.L. (1997) Recognition and utilization of expertise in problem-solving groups: Expert characteristics and behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(4): 324–328. Littlepage, G.E., Schmidt, G.W., Whisler, E.W., & Frost, A.G. (1995) An input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problemsolving groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5): 877–889. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.877. Lungeanu, A., & Contractor, N.S. (2015) The effects of diversity and network ties on innovations: The emergence of a new scientific field. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(5): 548–564. doi:10.1177/0002764214556804. MacPhail, L.H., Roloff, K.S., & Edmondson, A.C. (2011) Collaboration across knowledge boundaries within diverse teams: Reciprocal expertise affirmation as an enabling condition. In L.M. Roberts & J.E. Dutton (eds), Exploring positive identities and organizations building a theoretical and research foundation. New York: Routledge. McLeod, P.L., Lobel, S.A., & Cox, T.H. (1996) Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 27(2): 248–264. Meeus, W.H.J., & Raaijmakers, Q.A.W. (1986) Administrative obedience: Carrying out orders to use psychological-administrative violence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16(4): 311–324. Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row. Milliken, F.J., Bartel, C.A., & Kurtzberg, T.R. (2003) Diversity and creativity in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. In P.B. Paulus & B.A. Nijstad (eds), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 32–62). New York: Oxford University Press. Milliken, F.J., & Martins, L.L. (1996) Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. The Academy of Management Review, 21(2): 402–433. doi:10.2307/258667.

148

Working in a multicultural team

Mohrman, S.A. (1997) Designing and leading team-based organizations: A workbook for organizational self-design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Moscovici, S., Mucchi Faina, A., & Maass, A. (1994) Minority influence. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Mullen, B., & Goethals, G.R. (1987) Theories of group behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. Nemeth, C.J. (1986) Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1): 23–32. Nemeth, C.J., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001) Devil’s advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6): 707–720. Orji, R. (2016) Persuasion and culture: Individualism–collectivism and susceptibility to influence strategies. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Workshop on Personalization in Persuasive Technology (PPT’16), Salzburg, Austria. Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F., & Ercolani, A.P. (2003) The personal norm of reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 17(4): 251–284. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2001) Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6): 918–930. Rahim, M.A. (2002) Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3): 206–235. Rahim, M.A., & Bonoma, T.V. (1979) Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44(3c): 1323–1344. Regan, D.T. (1971) Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(6): 627–639. Reingen, P.H. (1982) Test of a list procedure for inducing compliance with a request to donate money. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(1): 110–118. Shaw, J.B., & Barrett-Power, E. (1998) The effects of diversity on small work group processes and performance. Human Relations, 51, 1307–1325. Smith, P.B., & Bond, M.H. (1994) Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Solomon, M. (2006) Groupthink versus the wisdom of crowds: The social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44(S1): 28–42. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2006.tb00028.x. Surowiecki, J. (2004) The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York: Doubleday. Tannen, D. (1995) The power of talk: Who gets heard and why. Harvard Business Review, 73(5): 138–148. Taylor, S., & Sullivan, J. (1993) Communication practices of Japanese managers in America: Cultural vs functional theories. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 31(1): 33–45. Thomas, K.W. (1979) Conflict and conflict management. In M.D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Soo Kim, H., Lin, S.-L., & Nishida, T. (1991) Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(4): 275–296. Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K.K., Shapiro, R.B., Garcia, W., Wright, T.J., & Oetzel, J.G. (2000) Ethnic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in

149

Working in a multicultural team

four US ethnic groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(1): 47–81. Tuckman, B.W. (1965) Developmental sequence in small-groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6): 384–399. doi:10.1037/h0022100. Tuckman, B.W. (1984) The march of folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Knopf. Tuckman, B.W., & Jensen, M.A.C. (1977) Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4): 419–427. doi:10.1177/ 105960117700200404. Tushman, M.L. (1977) Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(4): 587–605. Van der Zee, K., Atsma, N., & Brodbeck, F. (2004) The influence of social identity and personality on outcomes of cultural diversity in teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(3): 283–303. doi:10.1177/0022022104264123. Van Dyne, L., & Saavedra, R. (1996) A naturalistic minority influence experiment: Effects on divergent thinking, conflict and originality in workgroups. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1): 151–167. Van Knippenberg, D. (2004) Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 1008–1022. West, M.A. (2002) Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3): 355–387. Yoon, K., & Hollingshead, A. (2010) Cultural stereotyping, convergent expectations, and performance in cross-cultural collaborations. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 1(2): 160–167. Yuan, Y.C., Bazarova, N.N., Fulk, J., & Zhang, Z.-X. (2013) Recognition of expertise and perceived influence in intercultural collaboration: A study of mixed American and Chinese groups. Journal of Communication, 63(3): 476–497.

150

8 WORKING WITH MULTICULTURAL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY

Communication challenge Lavita’s case As cultural inclusion coordinator for the City of Westlawn, Lavita was always trying to identify areas of concern, where more cultural diversity and community inclusion appeared to be needed, and where she might be able to do something about it. One pattern that caught her attention was attendance at the city’s public meetings. People who came to city council meetings and public hearings did not seem to represent the changing demographics of the city: few Hispanics, particularly women; not many recent immigrants. She attended meetings regularly, and noticed there was also no one in a wheelchair, visually impaired, or using sign language. Was that because no one with these characteristics cared to come to public meetings? Lavita was thinking, or trying to think, in terms of the city’s population and who needed to be engaged in public discussions, who wanted to be engaged, and why they weren’t engaged; beside this, where was the largest impact? She was “visioning.” Earlier in the week, in response to an email announcement from the city manager, Lavita volunteered to join a planning committee to guide the City of Westlawn’s new visioning process. The committee

151

Working with multicultural stakeholders

was to include city staff and citizens. Her first job, probably even if she was not on the committee, was to recruit the community members. She was searching for some good topics to generate excitement. Lavita called Luis for help. He was chair of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. He was also a family friend. She knew he would be happy to meet with her and they could talk freely. Luis was a respected member of numerous communities of color in the region, and he was an inside source with a wide reach. He told her to come right over, he had time. Luis walked into a small but cozy living room-style conference room at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. “How are your parents?” “Doing well. You know better than I do.” Luis chuckled, and stayed light even as he got to it: “So you have city business where you think I can help?” Lavita immediately apologized, “I’m sorry, Luis. I didn’t know what to tell you. We are embarking, that’s the word – embarking – on a visioning process for the City of Westlawn. And that’s the word – visioning. The plan is to set up a planning committee with a few people from the city, like me, and a number of community members who can help us develop dialogue about what we want our home here to be like in the short term and in the long term.” “And I …” Lavita pointed to herself and put on her best face, “I am your friendly visioning planning committee recruiter person coming to enlist your help to get some enthusiastic people with good connections to join us.” People were always a good topic for Luis. He talked rapidly. Lavita listened and took notes. Luis jumped around the city, the state, and sometimes the country or the world, following activities to connections to names to recommendations, pointing to local individuals who might be interested, and interesting, for the visioning process. Finally, it occurred to Luis he might need to defend naming names, and he asked Lavita to tell him more about what she thought the visioning process might include, and what the planning committee might do. “I know the committee is not formed yet, but what are your thoughts?” Lavita shared her observation of limited diversity at public meetings. It seemed like a lot of people were not engaged with the public agencies that were there to serve them, Lavita argued. This was a good candidate for the kind of visioning dialogue she was imagining. Unfortunately, Luis did not seem to see it that way. Lavita noticed a change even before he spoke. His serious tone confirmed that he thought something was wrong with the way she was looking at things: “I cannot speak for everyone in the community, but I have some ideas why many multicultural community members do not come to the city hall or city events. Some of us, who have been around here awhile, have had some bad experiences dealing with the city.”

152

Working with multicultural stakeholders

Luis described tense relations with police and communities of color, dating back decades, specific incidents, particularly in neighborhoods and at workplaces. Some members of communities of color felt targeted. Some incidents were violent. “Things got much better in the late nineties with the change in the city’s leadership, but many still remember how bad it was. And they are still angry. Yes. The city did not listen. And community members voiced their concerns for a long time. So why do you think they ought to join in public meetings when they can’t expect the people there to care enough to listen?” That was a long time ago, Lavita thought. Wasn’t it? She never imagined the police thing was still influencing how the community members felt about the city today. She murmured a small protest that maybe Luis was overstating it. “Well, there are more recent examples,” Luis responded, “not as intense as what happened with the police.” He switched to a story involving the city’s Parks Department and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, his home turf. A couple of years ago, the city council and the Parks Department organized a series of public input sessions, asking residents how they might want to develop a small open area in downtown. Members of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and a good number of community members, wanted the place to be a public plaza with design features welcoming multicultural communities. They found examples of similar culturally friendly public places in other cities that were actively used for cultural events. The Parks Department and the city council ignored the Hispanic community’s idea and adopted a plan suggested by the city planner. No feedback was offered to the community, and no opportunity for response to the city’s selected plan. “I was not the chair of the Hispanic Chamber back then, but I was one of the members of the community who worked hard to develop a plan for the plaza,” Luis continued. “The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was the only citizen group to actively provide input for the use of the land.” He looked a moment at Lavita. “How do you think that made us feel when they did not respond to our ideas, or even acknowledge our efforts? Like maybe we don’t exist?” Luis was getting an edge in his voice. He stopped. Took a deep breath. Smiled at Lavita. She could sense the calm return. “So that is basically the reason why the Hispanic Chamber members do not engage much with the city. Others will have different stories to tell you. I want you to be aware what you might be facing.” “It feels daunting,” Lavita replied. “How am I supposed to do this?” On the way out, Luis held her warmly around the shoulder, reassuringly, but he dropped the fuzzy farewell at the door and delivered a few final action points to help her get started. “You know, you mentioned a couple of things that could be important. Check the ramp to

153

Working with multicultural stakeholders

the city hall. I heard it might be too steep for a wheelchair. Also, nobody knows how to arrange for interpreters for non-English-language or sign-language interpreters if someone needs one at a public meeting. Those are small things, but if they need to be fixed and you fix them, it tells people you notice.” Lavita looked pretty overwhelmed. Luis noticed and leaned in toward her, “Hey, dinner soon. Tell your folks.” He chuckled, “Or I will.” He drew away, and with a meaningful glance, conveyed his regard and confidence in her: “Don’t be too discouraged, Lavita. I’m glad they hired you as the cultural inclusion coordinator at the city. You are doing the right thing by talking to people.”

Engaging multicultural stakeholders Public and nonprofit professionals work with external stakeholders: individuals or groups outside the organization who “can affect or [are] affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). Some external stakeholders are partners to the organization. Some are direct beneficiaries. Both types of external stakeholders matter for public and nonprofit organizations to accomplish their missions (Bryson, 2004). In the 1990s, proponents of New Public Management (NPM) argued to reinvent government and reform services to provide better “customer” service to stakeholders (Hood, 1991; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). Focus was placed on eliminating inappropriate and discourteous treatment of the citizens, and improving efficiencies by removing mistakes, inconsistencies, and unclear or unnecessary procedures. The NPM movement became globally influential, and pushed public and nonprofit organizations to reflect, review, and improve the way they interact with their service beneficiaries. Some, however, cautioned that the consumerist approach to public service gave too little attention to the rights and active role of citizens in democratic governance. Advocates for New Public Service (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007) and New Public Governance (Morgan & Cook, 2014) redirected the focus toward the role of citizens and community members as partners in co-producing and co-creating public good through collaborative problem-solving. How we conceptualize citizens and community members – as customers or partners – has important implications for how an organization interacts and communicates with external stakeholders. With a customer perspective, a public or nonprofit manager will attend to meeting the customer’s needs, interact in a courteous and respectful manner, and strive to improve satisfaction. The partners’ perspective adds citizen engagement in deliberating issues,

154

Working with multicultural stakeholders

decisionmaking, and implementation of services (e.g., Roberts, 2008; Schachter & Yang, 2012). In both perspectives, when interacting with external stakeholders from the community – either as beneficiaries of services or as partners in co‑creating public goods – it is important for representatives of public and nonprofit organizations to be culturally mindful. Communication skills become increasingly important as the composition of communities grows more diverse and multicultural with changing demographics in the United States. As described in Chapter 1, the percentage of people who identified as nonwhite (i.e., black, Hispanic, Asian, or other) increased from 15 percent of the overall population in 1960, to 36 percent in 2010, and the trend is continuing (Colby & Ortman, 2015). The partners perspective further increases responsibility for culturally mindful communication. Active outreach is necessary to involve citizens and community members. Particular attention needs to be given to historically disenfranchised groups, low-income communities, and communities of color, whose views are more difficult to include, and often too easy to ignore. Inclusive engagement requires making connections among diverse groups of people across a variety of issues over time (Quick & Feldman, 2011). Lack of effort to engage disenfranchised communities in the past has resulted in exacerbating social inequities (Gooden, 2014; Krumholz & Forester, 1990). To correct inequities, the engagement process should be inclusive and designed to help empower communities. Deliberating community issues and implementing solutions is a job for everyone.

Framework for culturally mindful community engagement The Valuing, Enabling, and Managing (VEM) Diversity model (Nishishiba, 2015; Nishishiba et al., 2006) was originally developed as a heuristic tool to assist public and nonprofit managers identify appropriate approaches to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizational settings. The model provides a useful framework for multicultural community outreach and engagement efforts. The VEM model proposes that effective multicultural community engagement requires the following three elements: 1.

Value and understand the community

2.

Enable broader and diverse communities to engage

3.

Manage to promote inclusive and sustainable multicultural engagement

155

Working with multicultural stakeholders

Value and understand the community In engaging multicultural communities, it is crucial to recognize individual expertise in the community, respect contributions, and value input. When public or nonprofit professionals view participation by multicultural community members as symbolically “the right thing to do,” but do not truly endorse the process or the results, community members may feel their participation is not being valued. They may feel they have been invited to participate as a token representative of a minority community or to fulfill a legal requirement (Monno & Khakee, 2012). When community members feel they are not valued, frustration brews that can hurt the prospects for longterm, productive civic engagement (e.g., Office of Neighborhood Involvement City of Portland, 2015; Pidot & Morell, 2016). Public and nonprofit managers need to convey to community members that their input can actually influence change, and help to make that happen by increasing opportunities for input and the effectiveness of input in shaping final results. In addition, an inclusive focus can “take actions on specific items in the public domain as a means of intentionally creating a community engaged in an ongoing stream of issues” (Quick & Feldman, 2011). Culturally mindful engagement can help build communities. Valuing the contributions of multicultural community members requires public and nonprofit professionals to have a good understanding of the community’s historical background, cultural practices, and cultural orientation. When a community has experience of historical trauma involving public authorities, they may distrust or fear anything associated with government. African Americans, for example, have a long history of being discriminated against and being denied equal access to citizenship and protection of the law, and consequently, tend to distrust government and do not willingly engage with public authorities (Nunnally, 2012). Refugees from other countries may have their own reasons to fear government officials and authority figures. Such fears do not simply disappear once they cross the border. They are likely to remain more reluctant to express their ideas about public affairs out of fear that it might cause them trouble as it did in their home countries (Catholic Legal Immigration Network, 2016). Refugees and immigrants may also have reasons to feel apprehension and distrust toward the government and authorities on their own account. In the United States, raids on immigrants between 1994 and 2006 increased the population in detention by 400 percent, which fostered a climate of fear and distrust of government among US immigrants (National Network for Immigrants and Refugee Rights, 2008). Recent ongoing political debate on immigration reform is causing concern among members of immigrant communities (Minnis, 2016).

156

Working with multicultural stakeholders

Knowing the cultural practices, customs, rituals, and symbolisms specific to different communities is important to facilitate communication. Basic information can make a difference. For example, in organizing community events, it would be useful to know the dates for some culture-specific events and holidays to plan accordingly (see Box 8.1). Or police officers could benefit by knowing that in many Latin American societies it is common for a person pulled over for a traffic violation to get out of the car and walk toward the patrol car (Benavides & Hernandez, 2007). Interacting with the Native American communities, it could be useful to know the importance of the gift-giving philosophy and rituals. While modern mainstream US culture associates giving with recognition, power, and prestige, for most Native American cultures giving is a way to honor each other, both in giving and receiving, and may extend to gifts in the form of words, prayers, energy, or love, symbolizing interconnectedness to each other (Wells, 1998). A general understanding of the cultural orientation of different communities is also important to establish effective interaction. As discussed in Chapter 2, cultures can be assessed in a number of dimensions that produce meaningful differences in the way people interact. These cultural dimensions include: 1.

individualism vs. collectivism

2.

high vs. low power distance

3.

high vs. low uncertainty avoidance

4.

high- vs. low-context orientation

5.

monochronic vs. polychronic

Finding the position of a group’s cultural orientation on these scales will assist mindful communication and appropriate behavior that facilitates trust.

157

Working with multicultural stakeholders

Box 8.1 Cultural moments: Deciding the date for organizing the multicultural community forum I worked with a group of students on the Diversity Task Force (DTF) at the City of Beaverton, Oregon, to organize a Multicultural Community Forum. The purpose of the forum was to create momentum to engage and empower both new and emerging multicultural community leaders. The forum would give city officials, employees, and diverse community members an opportunity to interact and build relationships that would foster future civic engagement. We met with DTF members on a regular basis and did an extensive research on community organizing and outreach. Once the content of the forum was identified by DTF, the details of logistics planning was delegated to a smaller group, consisting of two Hispanic males, two Hispanic females, one Somali male, two Middle Eastern males, two Japanese females, one Korean female, and two white (one of them was Spanish-speaking) females. It turned out that identifying the location and the date was the most challenging task. Following our promising practice research, we tried to find a central location where it would be easy to find, accessible by public transportation, culturally neutral, and able to accommodate approximately one hundred people. We looked at libraries, community centers, school facilities. We then tried to identify the forum date, coordinating with the availabilities of different facilities. We first identified Thursday, May 9, and Saturday, May 11, as the desired dates for the event. We then recognized that Mexican Mother’s Day was celebrated on May 10, and this was likely to limit participation from the Hispanic community. We then focused on Thursday, May 16, and Saturday, May 18, but none of the facilities were available. We tried to avoid Memorial Day weekend, out of concern that holiday activities would discourage participation. This led the subcommittee to select Saturday, June 1. Shortly after we started advertising the forum and outreach to different communities, we received an email from a member of a Jewish community. The email noted that holding the event on Saturday prevented persons who observe Sabbath on Saturday from attending the forum. The person who sent the email expressed frustration that the forum was not inclusive of the Jewish community. We recognized it was an oversight on the part of the subcommittee members. We also noticed that none of the subcommittee members were Jewish. With representation from the Hispanic community in the subcommittee, we recognized Mexican Mother’s Day, but nobody noticed the implications for those who observe Sabbath. (Adapted from “Report: Multicultural Community Forum,” http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/publicservice_pub/15)

158

Working with multicultural stakeholders

Enable broader and diverse communities to engage If a public or nonprofit organization aims to incorporate input from diverse, multicultural communities it serves, outreach needs to be broad and inclusive. Without targeted efforts, whole communities can, and often are, represented by the “usual suspects” who have a louder voice due to institutional backing and organized advocacy (Keidan, 2008; Lukensmeyer, 2013). Historically, marginalized groups tend to be more hesitant and skeptical about engaging in any public meetings, due to bad experiences that made them less interested in participating. Unless they are convinced things are different this time, just announcing an upcoming public event is not likely to motivate them. Three outreach strategies are highlighted in the following sections, with demonstrated applications to multicultural communities. 1.

Develop personal connections with community members, leaders, and organizations

2.

Create safe space for multicultural members to engage

3.

Prepare for multilingual needs

Develop personal connections The concept of culture makes us more aware of how much our personal selves – the ways we think, behave, and communicate – derive largely from others around us in “complex webs of social interactions and interpersonal relationships” (Campbell, 2013, p. 37). Culture is personal, yet essentially part of the community. Culture-based communities distinguished by fundamental ties, like ethnicity, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation tend to have tighter social networks (Bloemraad, 2005; Hein, 2014). Favorite gathering places are typically designated for common social activities. A tight-knit social network makes use of personal connections to mobilize individuals to participate. An invitation that comes from a person one knows through shared membership in a voluntary association is more likely to be effective for political actions (Campbell, 2013). Organizers of a successful outreach strategy to include Hispanic Americans in public meetings noted that members of the Hispanic community tended to be suspicious of outsiders; having a personal connection helped establish legitimacy (Keidan, 2008). Impersonal approaches, such as calling people on the phone, or sending form letters or flyers, are less effective for Hispanic community members. Overall, building personal relationships with members of a multicultural community is likely to be the most important strategy to promote participation.

159

Working with multicultural stakeholders

Create safe space To engage multicultural communities, public and nonprofit professionals need to pay special attention to create a space where people feel “at home.” An unfamiliar conference room in a public building, away from home, being surrounded by total strangers and public officials, is not likely to be appealing. Yet this describes the environment where most public meetings are held. Interactions with multicultural external stakeholders need to take place in a physical location where they feel safe to think creatively and voice their opinions freely (Lukensmeyer, 2013). The City of Portland, Oregon, provides a good example in the way it recognized the importance of using safe space for public deliberation in its citywide visioning process. Beginning in the mid‑2000s, a variety of venues were employed to solicit input from a broad and diverse array of the city’s communities, including multicultural communities. In collaboration with different community organizations, the city organized celebration events, held multiple house parties, supported performing arts events, and enlisted the services of the longstanding cultural icon for cyclists, the T-Horse, a mobile tea house well suited for parties in the city’s parks (see Figure 8.1). People came as hoped, and gave their input (visionPDX City of Portland, 2007). Place can be important for its symbolism (Lukensmeyer, 2013). Take an easy example: a public meeting on community–police relations might be held most conveniently in a nice conference room at the Police Department, but the space, however grand, is FIGURE 8.1 T-Horse

160

Working with multicultural stakeholders

not likely to generate trust and forthcoming discussion; community members could easily harbor an uneasy feeling of being summoned by the police. The symbol arises due to similarities in patterns. The feelings attached to a symbol can be unanticipated and sometimes powerful, even though the reason is not clear. In the example, a symbolic suggestion of police power could be avoided by choosing a place that offers equal footing between the police and community members, possibly a library, a community center, or a school facility. Set-up of the space can also be important. Demonstrate you are prepared and care about your public participants: have clear signage, if necessary in multiple languages; have greeters or a receptionist for first contact and a personal welcome to help people feel at ease when they arrive. Serving culturally appropriate beverages, snacks, and food can help people feel at home (Keidan, 2008). If appropriate, invite celebrities or entertainers well known among the community members to draw larger attendance, which helps people feel safer (Keidan, 2008). Details such as seating arrangements or table set-up can also convey different messages to the participants (Lukensmeyer, 2013). Space is more than a physical setting. In a public meeting, the way the discussion proceeds, the attitudes displayed, the pace and dynamics of interaction, the content, all can make the space feel constricted or even suffocating. To make the discussion more effective and inclusive, experts on public meetings suggest the following: (a) use impartial and skilled facilitators; (b) set clear and realistic expected outcomes of the discussion; and (c) allow participants to set and agree on their own ground rules. For multicultural participants, sharing cultural backgrounds as an ice‑breaker appears to produce good results (Leighninger, 2006; Lukensmeyer, 2013). Other suggestions to promote safe and inclusive discussion include the following practices: 1.

Recognize: Encourage participants to recognize the presence of multiple forms of communication styles in the group. Discussion processes “that are too dependent on the ability of participants to communicate in a single, particular way, make it more difficult for everyone to fully participate” (McCoy & Scully, 2002, p. 121).

2.

Listen: Multicultural community members, especially those from historically marginalized groups, are not accustomed to having others truly listen to them. Recommend listening for everyone. As a group norm, listening will “reduce pressure on people who may be reluctant to expose their feelings or ideas before strangers” (McCoy & Scully, 2002, p. 121). More people will be able to feel comfortable to engage in the discussion.

161

Working with multicultural stakeholders

3.

Relax: Allow people to explore and analyze the issues at hand. Public officials have a tendency to try to push the direction of discussion, for various reasons, but foremost no doubt to expedite the discussion and decisionmaking process, or perform a duty. Instead, let community members sort out what is going on and deliberate on possible solutions. You provide time and information resources to facilitate policies where the communities involved can take ownership and celebrate success (McCoy & Scully, 2002; Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015).

Prepare for multilingual needs Language barriers are an obvious but often neglected challenge in civic engagement with multicultural communities. Recent immigrants and those whose language is not English need special attention. There are two ways to help those who speak a different language: translation, which converts written materials from one language to another; or interpretation, which verbally restates what is said in one language to another language (Martin & Nakayama, 2012). Interpretation has two distinct operative categories: consecutive interpretation, when the interpreter waits until the speaker finishes a sentence or a paragraph before beginning, so the speaker and the interpreter take turns speaking; and simultaneous interpretation, when the interpreter speaks concurrently with the original speaker. Simultaneous interpretation typically involves isolating the interpreters in a booth to transmit through personal receivers distributed among audience members who need the assistance. This arrangement is seen in settings like the United Nations or international conferences (Seleskovitch, 1978). Whispering works as a type of simultaneous interpretation when equipment is unavailable. The interpreter will usually join a table or stand nearby and simultaneously interpret a speaker in a whisper to a small group (Jones, 1998). Translation and interpretation are complex tasks, and not something just any bilingual person can perform. Better if you hire professional interpreters. (I need to disclose that I began my career in communication as a professional interpreter, and I continue to use interpreting skills in many capacities in my academic life, and train students to assist in our multicultural public meetings.) Interpretation, and especially simultaneous interpretation, requires knowledge, skill, and training to perform well (Jones, 1998). Government offices frequently require language services. With sufficient demand for a particular language, it might be useful to have a fully bilingual, culturally competent staff member, department, or independent agency to help out. The work is often contracted out to experts on a per-job basis. When Woodburn, Oregon, in the heart of a bountiful farming district, experienced a high need to respond to

162

Working with multicultural stakeholders

the increasing Spanish-speaking Hispanic population in the area, the town created a position for a community relations officer to assist with translation and interpretation. The new staff member provided interpretation at public meetings for those who needed assistance, translated official documents and information materials, and served as an ombudsperson for the Hispanic community (Benavides, 2008). Other organizations are also hiring bilingual staff members with additional pay. Bilingual pay policies typically involve paying extra to employees who are fluent in a non-English language, and when their job duties require interacting with non-English-speaking external stakeholders on a regular basis (International Public Management Association for Human Resources, 2006).

Manage to promote inclusive and sustainable multicultural engagement Engagement with multicultural communities is not, and should not be, a one-time affair. Engagement requires a long-term commitment to maintain relationships. Public and nonprofit organizations need to have a long-term management strategy to keep investing in community capacities to engage. Two key strategies have shown demonstrated success: (a) working with community leaders; and (b) providing leadership development opportunities.

Working with community leaders Any community has its leaders who can mobilize community members. A study of community organizers who worked closely with the Hispanic community (Keidan, 2008), noted the importance of recruiting community leaders to obtain buy-in. These leaders are instrumental in motivating others to engage. Community-focused organizations, including service providers, unions, nonprofit advocates, and immigration legal experts frequently take a leadership role in the community. Sometimes religious organizations, religious leaders, and interfaith networks have strong influence in a community. Organizers can also take advantage of community‑focused media, such as radio stations and newspapers, to reach a broader base of community members. Identify community leaders and assess who is represented. Some segments of the community may expect to be involved, and will need attention. Others who do not normally participate in public processes will require extra effort to encourage them to be interested in engaging (Pidot & Morell, 2016; visionPDX City of Portland, 2007). Leaders and leading organizations should be contacted early in any initiative to involve them in the planning and implementation process as equal partners. The visionPDX project in Portland, for

163

Working with multicultural stakeholders

example, recruited over 40 volunteer individuals and representatives of community groups to form the Vision Committee together with city staff. Grants to 29 community-based organizations throughout the city leveraged thousands of volunteer hours and engaged the public through numerous networks, using creative grassroots outreach strategies. Public engagement is an ongoing long-term process. It takes time to collectively identify, understand, and act upon community issues (McCoy & Scully, 2002). Organizers need systems in place to maintain relationships with community leaders, and keep working with persistence. Standard operations to maintain long-term relationships can include small but effective procedures, such as taking minutes and notes to retain continuity between meetings and lead follow-up activities, maintain contact lists, and use email and online interactions to keep networks engaged (Lukensmeyer, 2013). A significant part of this process involves helping communities pursue their own agendas; helping them enhance their own capacities, and facilitating contacts with other community leaders, and other government and nonprofit entities and resources (Leighninger, 2006). Portland’s visionPDX project exemplifies long-term relationship building between the city and its community partners. The relationships were maintained in subsequent projects, including development of the Portland Plan that guides the growth and development of Portland over the next 20 years, and in state-mandated processes to update the Comprehensive Plan for land use and economic development planning (Vizzini et al., 2015).

Providing leadership development opportunities Capacity building ensures long-term sustainable communities. Public and nonprofit organizations can work together with community members to invest in leadership development, and opportunities to improve knowledge and skills for problem-solving, communitybuilding, and public engagement (Keidan, 2008). visionPDX organizers conducted extensive interviews, focus groups, and surveys throughout the city at the beginning of the visioning initiative, and learned that community members wanted to learn how to participate effectively in public decisionmaking processes. Multicultural community members were interested in culturally relevant information and education programs for the general public (visionPDX City of Portland, 2007). Learning that communities wanted development opportunities for human capacity led the City of Portland to recognize that empowerment was a key issue, requiring “new pathways for participation, new efforts to strengthen people’s ability to participate, and new levels of cultural awareness and responsiveness by City staff and elected officials” (Office of Neighborhood Involvement City of

164

Working with multicultural stakeholders

Portland, 2015, p. 5). In 2006, the city established the Diversity and Civic Leadership (DCL) program to support new pathways. The DCL program funded a Leadership Academy for community members, and other community capacity‑building programs. The DCL program resulted in bringing thousands of people together for public meetings, and trained hundreds of leaders in more than 25 languages. Many individuals who went through the program are now volunteering on boards and commissions, and working in government and nonprofit organizations. Some have run for public office. The DCL program also helped develop greater collaboration among multicultural communities. The results have influenced policy outcomes.

Chapter summary 

Stakeholders are individuals and organizations that can affect or are affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives.



Some external stakeholders are direct beneficiaries of public and nonprofit organizations; they can be understood as “customers.”



Some external stakeholders are citizens and community members who are “partners” in co-producing and co-creating a public good.



It is important for public and nonprofit organizations inclusively to engage diverse groups of external stakeholders.



The Valuing, Enabling, and Managing (VEM) Diversity model provides a framework for inclusive multicultural engagement.



When engaging multicultural communities, it is important to value the contributions of the community by understanding the community’s historical background, cultural practices, and cultural orientations.



Effective multicultural engagement requires that we reach out to broader and more diverse communities.



Promising outreach strategies for multicultural communities include: (a) to develop personal connections with community members, leaders, and organizations; (b) to create safe space for multicultural members to engage; and (c) to prepare for multilingual needs.

165

Working with multicultural stakeholders



Public and nonprofit organizations need to have a long-term management strategy for inclusive and sustainable multicultural engagement.



Promising management strategies include: (a) working with community leaders; and (b) providing leadership development opportunities in collaboration with community members.

Questions for discussion and written assignments 1.

Attend a public hearing or a community meeting. Pay particular attention to who is in attendance, and how the meeting is conducted. If you were a consultant, what kind of advice would you give to the organizer to improve the quality of the meeting?

2.

Interview people from diverse communities and ask if they have attended any public meetings. If they have, ask about their experiences. If they have not, ask what keeps them from participating.

3.

Contact a public or nonprofit organization and find out if it has any bilingual pay policies. If it does, document the details. If not, ask why and report.

4.

Contact a public or nonprofit organization and find out what types of translation and interpretation services it offers to non-English-speaking community members.

5.

Think about situations where the external stakeholders for a public or nonprofit organization are considered “customers.” What needs to be considered to improve the customer service?

6.

Think about situations where the external stakeholders for a public or nonprofit organization are considered “partners.” How do these situations differ from those where the external stakeholders are considered “customers”?

Key words bilingual pay policies consecutive interpretation external stakeholders interpretation

166

simultaneous interpretation translation Valuing, Enabling, and Managing (VEM) Diversity model whispering

Working with multicultural stakeholders

References Benavides, A.D. (2008) Municipal best practices: How local governments are responding to a growing Hispanic community. Journal of Public Management and Social Policy, 14(1): 59–78. Benavides, A.D., & Hernandez, J.C.T. (2007) Serving diverse communities – cultural competency. ICMA Public Management Magazine, 14–18. Bloemraad, I. (2005) The limits of de Tocqueville: How government facilitates organisational capacity in newcomer communities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(5): 865–887. doi:10.1080/13691830 500177578. Bryson, J. (2004) What to do when stakeholders matter. Public Management Review, 6(1): 21–53. Campbell, D.E. (2013) Social networks and political participation. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1): 33–48. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci033011-201728. Catholic Legal Immigration Network. (2016) Increasing refugee civic participation: A guide for getting started. Retrieved from https://cliniclegal.org/ sites/default/files/Civic%20Participation%20Tool%20Kit_final%20%282% 29.pdf. Colby, S.L., & Ortman, J.M. (2015) Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. Retrieved from www.census.gov/ content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf. Denhardt, J.V., & Denhardt, R.B. (2007) The New Public Service: Serving, not steering. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Gooden, S. (2014) Race and social equity: A nervous area of government. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Hein, J. (2014) The urban ethnic community and collective action: Politics, protest, and civic engagement by Hmong Americans in Minneapolis-St. Paul. City & Community, 13(2): 119–139. doi:10.1111/cico.12063. Hood, C. (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1): 3–19. International Public Management Association for Human Resources. (2006) Personnel practices: Bilingual pay policies. Retrieved from http://ipma-hr. org/sites/default/files/pdf/hrcenter/BilingualPay/cpr_bil.pdf. Jones, R. (1998) Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St. Jerome. Keidan, G. (2008) Latino outreach strategies for civic engagement. National Civic Review, 97(4): 30–38. Krumholz, N., & Forester, J. (1990) Making equity planning work: Leadership in the public sector. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Leighninger, M. (2006) The next form of democracy: How expert rule is giving way to shared governance – and why politics will never be the same. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Lukensmeyer, C.J. (2013) Bringing citizen voices to the table: A guide for public managers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T.K. (2012) Intercultural communication in contexts (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. McCoy, M., & Scully, P. (2002) Deliberative dialogue to expand civic engagement: What kind of talk does democracy need? National Civic Review, 91(2): 117–135.

167

Working with multicultural stakeholders

Minnis, G. (2016) Immigration reform 2016: Here’s a glimpse at how Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump differ on immigration. Latin Post. Retrieved from www.latinpost.com/articles/120299/20160509/immigration-reform-2016comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-views-and-how-they-differ.htm. Monno, V., & Khakee, A. (2012) Tokenism or political activism? Some reflections on participatory planning. International Planning Studies, 17(1): 85–101. doi:10.1080/13563475.2011.638181. Morgan, D.F., & Cook, B.J. (2014) New Public Governance: A regime-centered perspective. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015) Public participation for 21st century democracy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. National Network for Immigrants and Refugee Rights. (2008) Over-raided, under siege: U.S. immigration laws and enforcement destroy the rights of immigrants. Retrieved from www.nnirr.org/drupal/node/53. Nishishiba, M. (2015) Valuing, Enabling and Managing (VEM) Diversity: A model for strategic multicultural outreach and engagement. Paper presented at the Annual Conference for the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), March, Chicago, IL. Nishishiba, M., Pearson, A., Cooper, T., Labissiere, Y., & Washington, E. (2006) Training manual for Culturally Competent Management Certificate Training program (CCMCT). Portland, OR: City of Portland. Nunnally, S.C. (2012) Trust in black America: Race, discrimination, and politics. New York: New York University Press. Office of Neighborhood Involvement City of Portland. (2015) Engaging for equity: A report on Portland’s Diversity and Civic Leadership program 2007–2013. Retrieved from www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/66693. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Pidot, E., & Morell, P. (2016) Voices from the region: Connecting historically underrepresented communities to Metro’s decision-making process. Retrieved from www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/Final_OIA_ Voices%20from%20the%20region_061016.pdf. Quick, K., & Feldman, M. (2011) Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3): 272–290. Roberts, N.C. (2008) The age of direct citizen participation. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Schachter, H.L., & Yang, K. (eds). (2012) The state of citizen participation in America. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Seleskovitch, D. (1978) Interpreting for international conferences: Problems of language and communication. Washington, DC: Pen and Booth. visionPDX City of Portland. (2007) Community engagement report. Retrieved from www.visionpdx.com/reading/engagementreport.pdf. Vizzini, D., Nishishiba, M., Shannahan, A., Wang, X., Kini, S., Iisako, Y., & Metzler, J. (2015) Case description: City of Portland’s community-based long-range planning. Unpublished manuscript. Portland, OR: Center for Public Service, Portland State University. Wells, R.A. (1998) The honor of giving: Philanthropy in Native America. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.

168

9 LEADING WITH CULTURALLY MINDFUL COMMUNICATION

Communication challenge Lavita and Leo’s case “I am happy to see you again, Leo.” Leo stopped at the sound of the voice; instantly familiar, but he couldn’t place it. He turned when he heard his name. “Aasiya! Hi. Sorry I missed you there.” Aasiya stood a few feet away from him in the corridor, calm and perfectly straight. She smiled, “No, no, I was just on my way to the luncheon. I saw you. Are you enjoying the conference?” They were at the Public and Nonprofit Employee Diversity Conference, with some 400 other people, held at the convention center at the state capital, an hour’s drive from Westlawn. “That was a great session this morning,” Leo replied. “I thought.” Aasiya nodded reassuringly and grinned, “Me too.” Leo turned to introduce Keiko next to him, but saw she was in an animated conversation, apparently with someone she knew. He gestured to her to catch up and walked with Aasiya to the hall where lunch was being served. Keiko marched in minutes later. “Look who I found!” Leo stood. He recognized Lavita. Quickly, they had a full party. The round table was set for lunch in fine style. Banquet staff rolled carts between the tables, serving what looked like a wonderful choice of entrées. The high-ceilinged room echoed with tinkling china and voices.

169

Leading with culturally mindful communication

“You have to love this,” Emily remarked with her usual enthusiasm as she settled in between Lavita and Keiko. She and Lavita drove together from Westlawn. Not everyone knew each other, and introductions went around the table. Lunch arrived. Aasiya was the first to prompt discussion. She wanted to know more about this band of interesting people who suddenly joined her for lunch. “Leo and I agreed that we really enjoyed the session this morning,” Aasiya said, “but I did not get a chance to ask him why. So I will ask everyone: What did you like about the speaker this morning?” Lavita was first to speak. “I liked the speaker, too. She was very informative. I particularly liked her idea of a ‘continuous improvement cycle for culturally mindful communication’.” Others nodded in agreement. “That cycle totally fit my own experience,” Keiko chimed in. “How so?” Leo asked. “Well, one of the messages was that motivation for intercultural interaction is a precondition for culturally mindful communication.” Keiko looked around the table. “Right?” She repeated the phrase. “I got that right away. Motivation is the key to success.” Others waited. Someone said, “OK.” Keiko continued, explaining how motivation got her here. Growing up in a rural part of Japan, she did not know much about other parts of Japan, or the world. She was fascinated by exchange students in her town from the United States, who regularly came to visit her parents’ restaurant. They were so different, yet attractive. She knew a little about Americans from TV shows and movies. The students spoke a little Japanese, but not enough. So she studied English intensely in junior high school and thought she would someday go see America for herself. “Motivation, right?” Keiko asked the circle. “I came here as an exchange student, oh, ten years ago. I was so excited to attend college completely in English. But that did not last long. Lavita, you know how much I struggled back then.” Keiko looked at Lavita. Lavita acknowledged with a very slight nod. She did not want to influence the direction of Keiko’s story in any way, and she was not sure where she was going. Keiko launched into a rapid summary of the struggles. For one thing, she had to learn practical English in everyday use, and get used to the metaphors and sayings encountered constantly, when she had no idea what people were talking about. “For example, Japanese textbooks don’t teach us how to say ‘what’s up?’ You know?” “I do know just what you mean,” Aasiya could not help but interject. “I can relate to that. The same thing happened when I first went to

170

Leading with culturally mindful communication

England, and a little when I came here, too. I remember I had to re-learn how to speak English, and adjust myself in many ways to communicate properly.” “Exactly!” Keiko was glad someone in the group shared her experience. “I was about to give up. Really. I needed a new motivation, a different motivation, a real motivation for everything right here in front of me. Intercultural interaction, as the speaker labeled it this morning, is really, really personal. I didn’t get that when I studied English. This was no longer about getting good grades and being proficient. It was about surviving and thriving. I wanted to go home, but Lavita sort of saved me.” Keiko looked straight at Lavita across the table. Lavita pursued what she thought Keiko was getting at: “So that’s the ‘learn’ and ‘adapt’ parts of the cycle. You had to re-motivate when you realized it wasn’t what you originally thought. Or else decide that intercultural interaction was not what you wanted after all.” Emily snorted. “Yeah, that works. Like you can avoid it.” Everyone laughed. Keiko wasn’t done with her thought. “The thing is, I was motivated to be intercultural, but I didn’t know a thing about the interaction part. I had to get motivated over and over again for all the steps the speaker mentioned: motivated to learn, motivated to adapt; and that meant I had to be motivated to observe and analyze what I needed to do.” Free-flow discussion among students in the classroom was hardest for Keiko, and that was what a college classroom was all about. Matters turned critical when she learned that instructors evaluated participation as part of her expected work, and her grades suffered. “At first I thought I was just bad at English. In a group I was totally lost. Then I noticed I was not stupid, because I understood enough, and a lot of times I knew what I would say, but I never got around to it. So I started to observe other students in the classroom. Like a cat,” Keiko clawed the air with two fingers and looked at Aasiya to see if she recognized the feeling, sitting quietly to draw an intuition about the situation. Leo turned his eyes to Keiko without moving his head and pondered the cat image. “You obviously got over that, darling,” Emily retorted, and clawed her own two fingers at her, and hissed. Everyone laughed again. “What did you do?” Aasiya asked earnestly. “For me, I had to learn how to jump in, and I mean, actually talk. I noticed the ones who talked well did not hesitate to say something while another person was still talking, even if they weren’t finished. No way I could do that.”

171

Leading with culturally mindful communication

“So there is the observation,” Lavita interrupted, seizing the model in Keiko’s example now that it looked complete. “First you had to motivate yourself to learn how to interact, so good, you are going to stick around. Then you had to motivate yourself to observe as a way to learn; and … wait. The result of the analysis was, no way you could do that. I guess you had to motivate yourself again over the last hurdle to adapt.” Keiko pursed her lips at Lavita: “It was hard, OK?” “What did you do?” Aasiya repeated. “I started to raise my hand,” Keiko said sheepishly, and raised her hand. Leo couldn’t help it. He raised his hand, too. Afterward, he thought maybe it was some undetectable sign of affection, and not mere foolishness. So often he couldn’t figure out his not‑so-cute impulses. “See?” Keiko said, satisfied. “People do it here, too. I checked. I didn’t count it, but they do. And I raised my hand all my life at school in Japan, maybe some of you did, too. But then, you don’t raise your hand in public, or when you are all grown up in college. I did it anyway. People recognized it, they got used to me. When they wanted to, they stopped and let me speak. It was still hard not to be rude.” “Oh Keiko,” Emily said, “there is really nothing to worry about. I do it all the time. If you wave a little, like this,” Emily raised her arm behind her, “they will eventually put a martini in it.” Everyone laughed for real this time, even Aasiya. Emily was so often completely outrageous; one reason Lavita liked her so much. “Yeah, it worked,” Keiko admitted. “I eventually adapted more, I guess, and gradually dropped it.” Keiko saw a glint in Lavita’s eye. “Well, I do still raise my hand, sometimes,” she raised her arm halfway, barely over the tabletop. Leo next to her, gulped. This girl was so cute. “Many scholars have studied this behavior,” Aasiya carried on the thread of the conversation. “Cultural differences in turn-taking is well known. Believe me, you are not unique.” Aasiya raised her eyebrows slightly as she looked at Keiko across the table. Emily, next to Keiko, leaned forward, “Aasiya, you have to tell us what you know.” Leo started. He wasn’t sure Aasiya was going to be prepared to say what she knew. She was brilliant and really experienced, but some of those experiences he suspected were freighted with hard feelings. Keiko’s hard and Aasiya’s hard were in horribly different realities. Impulse struck again. “Keiko is now an expert at jumping into conversations,” Leo interrupted. “She has no problem interrupting me all the time.” Everyone laughed a little, maybe relieved the moment passed.

172

Leading with culturally mindful communication

“That was a great illustration of the continuous improvement cycle, Keiko,” Emily said, turning to Keiko, showing she accepted the diversion. “Thank you. I love it, your idea that motivation is a series, which I think is what motivation means anyway, right? You persist. This could be something. I’ve been wondering about ways to motivate folks at the city on a few issues we have,” Emily stopped with a sudden realization, “which you know about, because we just hired you to conduct our training.” Emily turned to Leo and Aasiya, who otherwise would be the only ones left out; or maybe just Aasiya would be left out if Keiko talked about work with Leo, so more to Aasiya then, Emily continued, “We have some concerns that some people are not motivated to engage with people from different cultural backgrounds. We need our employees to be more culturally mindful, so we can get along and get things done, with everyone happy and eager to be with us doing it. That sums it up, I think.” The table was silent. “I know trying to motivate people requires more than the training. But all along maybe I’ve been thinking of the training like a lever or a switch, I can just shape a policy, make a tweak, and presto, here we are on a shiny new penny. I think a lot about this, but continuous improvement is difficult to grasp. I encourage a warm, loving environment within my radius, naturally, but how am I supposed to do anything about the ethics and communication culture of everyone in the organization? I can’t just turn on the current. Motivation comes in a series and it’s a constant challenge.” In the quiet that followed, Aasiya decided she needed to respond. “I think you underestimate the lever. Did you not ever sit on a teeter-totter with your sister?” she asked Emily, “You call it a teeter-totter, right?” Emily nodded she had the picture. “You know,” Aasiya confided in everyone, and raised her arms a little to her side to illustrate, “you only need to be a little heavier to keep the other one in the air, and all you have to do is sit there.” Aasiya paused, looked a moment at her nails, demurely. “And if you change the notch in the board, then even the little one can hold the big one in the air by just sitting there. I remember I liked that very much.” “And the switch,” Lavita intruded, and glanced at Aasiya for permission to continue; “what you mean by a switch, I think Emily, is not just a switch, but some continuous force, just what we want. If you have a mechanical switch, then gravity runs it, like a canal gate. If you mean an electrical switch, then you have a generator somewhere in the background that runs constantly through an extensive infrastructure and network system to reach your switch and where you

173

Leading with culturally mindful communication

want it to go. Both switches do what you want. Gravity looks like the best option to me, if you can use it.” “Gravity. I like it,” Emily responded, and turned to Aasiya, “and you’re right, the lever, of course.” Emily purposely rubbed her chin, “Frankly, I don’t mind maybe pumping a little electricity, too. I have some resources.” Aasiya resumed, “I have found that giving people concrete, practical reasons to interact is very effective in helping them to be motivated to learn from and adapt to each other; at least in the kinds of diverse situations in my experience.” Talk ensued. Lavita’s thoughts wandered, remembering her interaction with Marilyn at the ice-cream social. She was still not comfortable with the encounter. The discussion motivated her to look at the issue analytically, using the concepts of continuous improvement they were exploring. She pulled out a handout from the morning speaker, showing an Analysis Matrix for Mindful Communication. She puzzled over the terms now more familiar through Keiko’s story – motivation, learn and adapt, observe and analyze – and applied them to her own situation. She started filling in the empty spaces in the diagram with tiny, precise notes. Right when Lavita finished filling in all the empty spaces, Leo spoke to her. “What are you doing, Lavita?” Again, Leo acted on impulse. Aasiya was sitting quietly between them. Keiko and Emily, sitting next to each other across the table, were engrossed in details of the proposed diversity training. “Oh, I’m sorry,” Lavita looked up, “I am using this matrix from this morning to analyze my interaction with one of my co-workers. I think I need to learn and adapt.” Lavita showed Leo and Aasiya the matrix, and the others paid attention. “I realized I need to know more about this person if I want to keep working with her. I made some notes about who I might talk to for more information, or there,” she pointed at a line, “for perspective. Here are some neutral places we could meet, so we could get to know each other.” “Well, that’s a good idea!” Emily looked pleased. In her all-ears position, she knew that something happened at the ice-cream social. She was relieved Lavita was going to take action. Lavita had more to say. “I also realized,” she looked up from the paper on the table to look at the others, “that being stereotyped, or seeing someone being stereotyped, is my hot button. I need to monitor myself and learn how to react when I encounter someone using stereotypes. That’s going to be my first theme. The speaker suggested keeping a ‘cultural moment journal,’ and I am going to do it, so I can think through some of these things.” Leo looked at Lavita with an expression of astonishment and respect. It accrued from the few times he met her.

174

Leading with culturally mindful communication

“Lavita, you really are a cultural coordinator. You are so comfortable with all these intercultural communication and diversity issues, you jot down your observations and instantly see what you have to do. Me, I am still asking myself how much I want to learn about others, and how much I can keep on my own terms in my own little world.” Leo glanced at Aasiya, remembering some of their conversations. “You don’t stop critically examining yourself and your communication skills. You keep looking for ways to improve. I am so impressed with you.” Lavita flushed. She was never good at taking a compliment. “Not sure about that, Leo. I’m just motivated by the morning speaker: mastering culturally mindful communication requires continuous improvement. That’s what she said. I figure continuous means I need to keep working on it.”

Culturally mindful communication skills and leadership Leaders operate in an increasingly multicultural environment. Here are five things you can do to build culturally mindful skills to work with people from diverse backgrounds, and make the differences work for your organization (Kennedy, 2008): 1.

Make diversity a priority

2.

Get to know people and their differences

3.

Enable rich communication

4.

Make accountability a core value

5.

Establish solutions where everybody benefits (mutualism as the arbiter)

Leaders produce collective action by energizing members of an organization or community. Shared action facilitates shared meanings and a larger sense of the common good (Morgan et al., 2017). Culturally mindful leaders see diversity, inclusion, and equity as critical factors for innovation, creativity, and success in the organization or society. They identify mutual interests, values, and beliefs to develop a culture of interdependence and collaboration (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Communication skills are at the core of leadership. Former United States Representative Heather Wilson of New Mexico (1998–2008) said, “If you can’t communicate, you can’t lead” (Liswood, 2010, p. 44). Communication is not exclusive to rank. Leadership scholars argue that individuals without positions of formal power or authority can be leaders and assume leadership responsibilities, regardless of

175

Leading with culturally mindful communication

their role, position, rank, or affiliation; these individuals may be able to transform the ordinary status quo into an extraordinary future (Morgan et al., 2017). Benjamin Zander, conductor and music director of the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra, pointed out that an orchestra is not led by the conductor only. Any musicians can lead, sitting in one of those many chairs, using their “inner rhythms and harmonies,” providing clarity and authority and influencing the performance (Zander & Zander, 2000). In the field of public service, there is also an increasing recognition that complex public problems, such as economic development, poverty, and homelessness, can only be addressed when organizations from multiple sectors collaborate. Partners can include government agencies, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, businesses, community groups, and many more. Public and nonprofit professionals need to inspire, mobilize, and sustain their own organizations, as always, but also need to participate in a number of external relationships that bring together diverse groups and organizational cultures (Crosby & Bryson, 2010). Different communication skills may be necessary that focus on collaboration and network governance. Several key areas for attention have been identified (Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004): 1.

Coaching

2.

Mediation

3.

Negotiation

4.

Interpersonal relations

5.

Team building

Other skill sets include: 1.

Big-picture thinking

2.

Risk analysis

3.

Contract management

4.

Strategic thinking

As external stakeholders become more multicultural, public and nonprofit managers need to apply mindful communication skills in all these areas to work effectively. Complex public problems take

176

Leading with culturally mindful communication

collaboration to properly manage, and good communication is essential. This book covered many topics and ideas that may help frame thinking about communication styles and forms, applicable at all levels and types of activity, and, it is hoped, most situations, for anyone. As we saw in Keiko’s story, however, communication skills are not something any textbook really prepares you to learn. They require practice to master. This final chapter presents a framework to conceptualize the process of culturally mindful communication. The importance of culturally mindful communication is the theme of this book and we need to devote some further attention to what mindfulness means in practice, and how we can develop and use it as a tool to improve our communication skills.

Becoming a culturally mindful communicator As discussed in Chapter 3, turning off the communication cruise control is the first step toward mindfulness. A lot is happening in the process of interaction. Driving is a good metaphor for the process of communication: multiple things are happening, keeping track of the speedometer, the throttle, the brake, and more inside the car, as well as the road, traffic, and conditions outside the car, all at the same time. In communication, once cruise control is turned off, the process requires the same kind of minute attention spread simultaneously across all fronts. Communicating in a culturally mindful way takes a lot of work. As with any task, it helps immensely to know what needs attention. Specifics will eventually become the point of concern, but knowing where to proceed is a good start. Figure 9.1 depicts key components of culturally mindful communication as introduced in the opening story, including: (a) motivation, (b) learn, (c) adapt, (d) observe, and (e) analyze.

Motivation Without motivation communication does not happen. Engagement takes energy. It may be difficult to imagine for some, but we cannot always assume that people are motivated to communicate with each other. This is particularly true when it comes to intercultural communication. As discussed in Chapter 6, an individual can choose to avoid, discriminate, and segregate others due to prejudice (Allport, 1954). Strong prejudice against a group can result in refusal to engage. This is why motivation is the first key term in culturally mindful communication. Only when a person desires to engage in an intercultural interaction can we expect a constructive outcome.

177

Leading with culturally mindful communication FIGURE 9.1 Process and components of culturally mindful communication

Motivation

Learn

Adapt

Communicate Self Others Context Analyze

Observe

What motivates people to engage in culturally mindful communication? There are some basic, fundamental human needs shown in the list below, which when unsatisfied, “generate feelings of deprivation” (Turner, 1987, p. 23): 1.

A sense of security

2.

Trusting relationships

3.

A sense of group inclusion

4.

Avoiding and diffusing anxiety

5.

A sense of a commonly shared world

6.

Symbolic and material gratification

7.

Sustaining self-conceptions

Beyond these fundamental needs are other instrumental needs that also motivate people to engage in communications, even across cultural differences. For example, people will pursue intercultural communication when they seek or give information, want to persuade others to do something for them, or express emotions (Guirdham, 2011). It is important to remember that motivation is the lever for action. When people in an organization or the community are not keen to engage with people from different cultural backgrounds, one way to address the issue may be to identify some instrumental reasons why it might benefit them. In the for-profit sector, a widely used

178

Leading with culturally mindful communication

approach is to “build a business case for diversity,” which appeals to the instrumental motivation for businesses to be successful (Herring, 2009). Under the influence of the New Public Management philosophy that promotes running government like a business, popularity of the business case for diversity is now gaining ground in public-sector organizations, too (Nishishiba, 2012). Motivation to engage is the first step toward effective intercultural interactions. Once engaged, actions for culturally mindful communication take place, which require conscious efforts. A motivated individual needs to be simultaneously aware of numerous communication cues, styles, and forms. All this works better with preparation. An inclination to improve leads to a desire to learn about the other, and on toward the further steps in culturally mindful communication – observe, analyze, adapt. The sequence of the steps may not take place in a perfectly linear manner, and there may be cycles between actions, as we saw in Keiko’s story of motivation. However, for clarity, these actions will be explained as if they happen sequentially.

Learn Learning is often viewed by tourists as the best part of the whole adventure. Intercultural contact makes you think in a culturally mindful way if you want to get around. Learning involves gaining knowledge about (a) self, (b) others, and (c) the context of the situation. A person may assume self-knowledge, but that is not always fulfilled. Once exposed to an environment of unfamiliar or impossible social contacts, a person may find a variety of new information to assess about oneself (Martin & Nakayama, 2012). Cultural orientation, norms, beliefs, practices, and many other contributing factors in human contact found our identity, and influence the way we live and make sense of the world. Self-knowledge is gained by actively making efforts to learn the way culture influences how you see things, think, and act. It takes a particularly motivated individual to start first on oneself to learn and adapt; but in a multicultural situation, this is often what it takes. In mindful communication it is a mandatory process. Learn about self first. Learning about others is a logical step for someone trying to communicate across cultural barriers, yet it is often overlooked. Learning more about a person’s background and gaining otherknowledge about cultural orientations, norms, beliefs, practices, and how they think and behave, will help make the interaction more effective. By applying both self-knowledge and other‑knowledge, a communicator is better able to assess similarities and differences, and negotiate differences before they become a source of conflict (Johnson, 2014).

179

Leading with culturally mindful communication

As with any information, other-knowledge, and self-knowledge too, depends on it being accurate and relevant. Mindfulness requires avoiding stereotypes. Other-knowledge should be used as a guide to assess and navigate the situation, not a fixed template. In the observation and analysis phases that follow, an individual needs to be open to learn more about the other and be willing to be flexible to keep making changes in how the other is perceived. Context is the third type of knowledge a person needs for effective intercultural communication. Context knowledge refers to appropriate procedures, in given cultural circumstances, on “how to do things,” and also “why and when” things are done (Earley & Ang, 2003). Some culture-specific practices are important context knowledge when visiting different countries or when people participate in culture-based ceremonies. For example, in Japan, Korea, China, and Vietnam, a person should not stick chopsticks upright in a bowl of rice (“how to do things”) – a practice considered inappropriate because it is part of the ritual in funerals, and is supposed to bring bad luck (“why and when”) (Mineta, 2014). No chopsticks in a bowl of rice is fairly easy to learn. Other context knowledge can be much harder to learn, because it is not always evident. Frequently, procedures on how things are done become automatic through repeated use and people have difficulty articulating them, taking them for granted (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). Be aware that there are unstated assumptions and practices embedded in the society and culture. Check your context assumptions (see Box 9.1). Knowledge can be gained in various ways. Books (like this one), or the internet and other media are common sources of information to which a person can turn for information about self, others, and context, especially when preparing for multicultural contact. The actual contact creates a new learning experience on its own. As discussed in Chapter 3, people use passive, active, and interactive strategies to gain information. Passive strategies involve information gathering through observation; active strategies involve interacting with those other than the target person; and interactive strategies directly interact with the target person. All three strategies can be used to gain knowledge about self, others, and context.

180

Leading with culturally mindful communication

Box 9.1 Cultural moments: Fancy invitation card, or not? My brother is married to a woman from China, whom he met while they were in graduate school together in Kansas. This panic-inducing cultural moment happened right before my brother’s graduation. My sister-in-law, who was still learning social etiquette in the United States, relied on my mother to teach her things, such as how to write thank you notes, and how to organize parties and such. So for my brother’s graduation party, my mother helped her. She ordered invitation cards. When the invitation cards arrived, my sister-in-law called my mother in tears. She said the cards were ruined and she assumed someone had played a horrible joke on her. She said they were purposely torn and someone had put toilet paper in all of them. My mother explained to her that they were supposed to look like that. A recent trend in formal cards was to have a printed note on thick paper with some frayed unfinished edge to give a crafty feel. For my sister-in-law, this was “purposely torn.” The trend to use fancy tissue paper, like you use for a gift bag as an insert, my sister-in-law thought was “toilet paper.” Each culture has its own standard on what practices are appropriate for what type of occasions. It was eye opening for me to realize that what are considered fancy, expensive invitation cards in the USA, could be totally inappropriate in the eyes of my Chinese sister-in-law. It is important to remember that something as trivial as the design of an invitation card, if you do not have the context knowledge on what kinds of things are considered appropriate on what kinds of occasions for whom, can be a source of major cultural misunderstanding. (Kristian, MPA student; adapted from a class online posting)

Adapt Adapting knowledge for use is important and happens in various ways. The clearest example of adapting knowledge to intercultural communication is the acquisition and use of a second language to communicate with others who speak the language. Anxiety Uncertainty Management theory, discussed in Chapter 3, suggests that information can reduce uncertainty and anxiety and help facilitate better communication. Communication Accommodation Theory notes that based on the information about others, people adapt their communication style either by converging or diverging. Adaptation can go through many phases and setbacks, as we observed in Keiko’s story. We also saw how adapting might involve negotiating a communication style through assessing the cultural orientations of (a) self, (b) others, or (c) context. In Keiko’s case, she recognized that her high-context communication style did not work

181

Leading with culturally mindful communication

in a low-context culture in the US classroom, and she adapted a low-context method of communication. She realized she could not expect the US students to “read the air” in a high‑context manner.

Observe One of the important components of being an effective, culturally mindful communicator is to observe consciously what happens during the communication process. The importance of observation is noted in the oft-quoted phrase by the Scottish author Samuel Smiles (1860, p. 272): “Wisdom and understanding can only become the possession of individual men by travelling the old road of observation, attention, perseverance, and industry.” Being a good observer is essential to being a culturally mindful communicator. Through careful observation and active listening a person can pick up information not explicitly articulated elsewhere. As with learning and gaining knowledge, observation needs to be directed at (a) self, (b) others, and (c) context. What is observed includes both verbal and nonverbal cues, and behavior of all the people in the situation. As alluded to briefly in earlier chapters, the physical environment, including displayed symbols and artifacts, can convey important messages. Information about context may be found in the room setting, where people sit or stand, who speaks and when, and how the time is managed. Less easy to observe in a multicultural situation, feelings and emotions also need to be monitored and acknowledged, both in oneself and others, to negotiate appropriate reactions (Goleman, 1998). One’s own emotions might be surprising in the situation, but easily read, whereas the other’s emotions can be both surprising and inscrutable. There is not always good advice on how to be mindful of signs, wary of symbols, and respectful of the other person while communicating in a learning situation; however, by trying to view and feel the world in “another person’s shoes” leads to empathy, and empathy is the first important ingredient to all recipes for culturally mindful communication. Empathy means applying what communication scholar Bennett (1998) described as a “platinum rule,” which states “Do unto others as they themselves would have done unto them.” This is different from the commonly used “golden rule” that says “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” [italics in original]. Good observation needs skill. One needs to be attentive, open, alert, and engaged in the situation, and be prepared as in driving a car for multiple things in multiple layers requiring attention all at once. Observation is a trainable skill. As an individual learns to be observant in a complex situation, the skill comes naturally. Writing down experiences and thoughts related to intercultural interactions

182

Leading with culturally mindful communication

as a “cultural moments” diary can serve as a useful tool to sharpen one’s thoughts and capacity for openness.

Analyze Observation forms a pool of raw data that needs further attention to make it useful “wisdom and understanding,” as Samuel Smiles put it. Analysis is a step back to summarize and explicitly recognize patterns. Analysis can be conducted on multiple levels, encompassing self, others, and context. The purpose of analysis is to arrive at a result that can be intelligently employed to help negotiate the situation or others like it in the future. Materials for reflection include communication styles and interactions for self and others, and primary cultural orientations and norms in the context of the situation. Power relationships may be an important consideration, and should be given special attention. One useful analysis plots the nature of an interaction on the intercultural–intracultural continuum introduced in Chapter 3. Reflecting on this summary dimension can help isolate and inventory shared assumptions, or taken-for-granted assumptions causing communication barriers. Another useful technique to use in analysis relies on a capacity called metacognition, or to strategically “think about thinking” and “know about knowing” (Flavell, 1979). Metacognition refers to higher-order thinking processes that involve “(a) connecting new information with what people already know, (b) selecting the thinking strategies carefully and intentionally, and (c) planning on how to monitor and evaluate the thinking strategies and processes” (Moua, 2010, p. 74). Connecting new information to what one already knows is easier with a list to distinguish discrete categories and compare one side to another. The Analysis Matrix for Mindful Communication, illustrated in Figure 9.2, is a tool that can be used to organize and analyze what you think you know about a situation, what you observed in others, and what you do not know (or want to know). This is obviously more a long-term strategy for future interactions. Self, others, and context are still the basic information categories. The figure shows the situation Lavita analyzed involving her encounter with Marilyn, described in Chapter 6. By organizing old and new information, and identifying what needs to be known, the matrix helps select what needs attention most. The matrix should be filled in and interpreted carefully and intentionally, based on real results of observations and initial analysis. In Lavita’s example, she realized she did not have much information, and listed where she could go to become better informed. She was also careful

183

Leading with culturally mindful communication FIGURE 9.2 Lavita’s analysis of her interaction with Marilyn

Analysis Matrix for Mindful Communication

What I know About myself

About others

About the context

What I observe

What I dont't know (What I want to know)

 I am a second generation Hispanic woman.  My parents are professional.

 I felt uncomfortable having my parents being stereotyped.  I told her to not make assumptions.

 How did I make Marilyn feel?  What should I do when someone make me uncomfortable by stereotyping?

(Marilyn)  She is new to the City.  She is a paralegal.

 She was sociable.  She automatically assumed that my parents are farmworkers.

 I don't know why she made the assuption about my parents.  I don't know her experience with Hispanics.  I don't know her cultural background.

 I met Marilyn for the first time.  I met her at the city social.

 People were trying to get to know new people.  Marilyn was trying to get to know people.

 How much should I disclose my background with new employees?

to include an interactive strategy and meet directly with Marilyn as the primary source of information about Marilyn. Future communication is a big part of the process at this stage. Plans can include decisions on how to monitor and evaluate a future situation, or practice and learn, or observe self or others with a freely open mind. This makes a longer arc for learning and adapting, when one can take time, maybe even practice in front of a mirror. With more time, the analytic task becomes a larger process. In Lavita’s case, she decided to monitor herself, and keep a journal to explore how she feels and reacts about specific encounters and situations, particularly in regard to stereotyping. Separated from a situation, an individual might be prone to relax and fall into familiar, convenient habits. Better to remember that culturally mindful communication needs persistent work. Preparation is a key to success.

Back to “learn and adapt”: continuous improvement cycle Observations and analyses of intercultural situations will give a person more information that enhances self-knowledge, and maybe something about others, and the context. New knowledge gained initiates a new process to learn and adapt. Observations can be combined, reanalyzed, and reformulated into prospective action. Figure 9.3 depicts this cyclical process. A persistent commitment, and replenished motivation, keeps the cycle flowing in a continuous process of change and growth, dependent upon culturally mindful communication. The aim is to more effectively negotiate differences and improve the outcomes of communication. Kick‑starting motivation at intervals, as we observed in Keiko’s story, may be necessary to avoid succumbing to isolation and retreat. Adapting communication behavior offers opportunities to mark success, and may be the best

184

Leading with culturally mindful communication FIGURE 9.3 Continuous improvement cycle for culturally mindful communication process

Motivation Learn

Continuous improvement

Analyze

Adapt

Motivation Learn

Adapt

Communicate

Observe

Analyze

Motivation Learn

Adapt

Communicate

Observe

Analyze

Motivation

Communicate Learn

Adapt Observe

motivator. A dose of adaptation here and there, maybe on both sides, enacts an exchange process that may in itself motivate further interaction. The process of adapting and improving is not always easy. We are not always comfortable taking a hard look at ourselves to examine and question our ways of doing things. A person needs to push against one’s own barriers. Change familiar ways of communicating: suspend or change some culturally based assumptions, ways of thinking, or behaviors, and see how it goes. Why do I do things this way? What were my assumptions? Is something about it deeply ingrained in me? Asking these questions touches on the fundamental comfort zone of a person. Stripping away the layers of an onion to find the core, it is sometimes said, reveals that there were only the layers after all. The whole examination of self and others and context through learning, observation, analyzing, and adapting, can possibly threaten what you know, or the other knows, and disintegrate identity to some noticeable degree. It is important to reintegrate information and develop a plan, so change can prepare the way to accommodate negotiated substitutes. Change can be stressful. Conscious or unconscious psychological resistance is common. The defense mechanism should not be judged as another barrier to be broken down. Instead it should be embraced. It may be the last resort for an individual trying to carry on in a difficult situation. The dynamics of disintegration and reintegration processes are threatening, but these dynamics are also the basic building blocks for growth. As it was nicely put some time ago: Growth is the dis-integration of one way of experiencing the world, followed by a reorganization of this experience, a

185

Leading with culturally mindful communication

reorganization that includes the new disclosure of the world. The disorganization, or even shattering, of one way to experience the world, is brought on by new disclosures from the changing being of the world, disclosures that were always being transmitted, but were usually ignored. (Jourard, 1968, p. 456) The environment surrounding public and nonprofit professionals is becoming more and more diverse and multicultural. As professionals, we need to learn new skills to be effective leaders. Communication skills are central to everything else. Culturally mindful communicators are needed in today’s multicultural, many-layered society to maximize our capacity to work together. By using communication tools with dexterity, we can develop comfort zones where our fundamental needs for trust and security, and other basic needs, are met through our human contact with those around us. Mindfulness and continuous improvement means, in large part, self-examination and persistent self-knowledge to achieve internal growth. Part of our job is to have the courage and confidence to lead, and help others lead, with culturally mindful communication skills.

Chapter summary

186



Leaders who operate in an increasingly multicultural environment require culturally mindful communication skills.



Culturally mindful leaders see diversity, inclusion, and equity as critical factors for innovation, creativity, and success in the organization and society.



Components of culturally mindful communication include: (a) motivation, (b) learn, (c) adapt, (d) observe, and (e) analyze.



Motivation to engage and communicate with people with different cultural backgrounds is the first precondition for a culturally mindful communication process.



Learning in culturally mindful communication involves obtaining three types of knowledge: of self, other, and context.



In culturally mindful communication, a person needs to adapt communication behavior based on knowledge gained in all three areas of self, other, and context.

Leading with culturally mindful communication



Consciously observing what happens in all areas simultaneously during the communication process is a critical dynamic skill for culturally mindful communication.



Information obtained through observation needs to be analyzed by connecting new information with what is already known to develop a longer-term strategy, selecting the thinking process, and monitoring and evaluating thinking strategies.



Culturally mindful communication is a continuous improvement process with the cycle of learn, adapt, observe, and analyze.

Questions for discussion and written assignments 1.

Think about different leaders around you. What makes them good leaders?

2.

Do you know people whom you consider to be culturally mindful leaders? What makes them so? What particular qualities do they have?

3.

Anybody can take leadership action from “where they sit.” How do you see yourself as a leader?

4.

Think about what you know about yourself. Write down more than 20 sentences that start with “I am …” or “I do …”

5.

Think about a situation when you adapted your communication style to match that of others or the context. How did you adapt? What factors led you to adapt?

6.

During the next ten days, pay attention to your interaction with others and keep a log of what you observed and noticed through an intercultural interaction lens.

7.

Identify one particular intercultural interaction that you had during the last few weeks. Use the Analysis Matrix for Mindful Communication and analyze the interaction. Identify your strategy for future intercultural interactions.

187

Leading with culturally mindful communication

Key words adapt Analysis Matrix for Mindful Communication analyze context knowledge empathy intercultural–-intracultural continuum learn

metacognition motivation observe other-knowledge platinum rule self-knowledge

References Allport, G.W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bennett, M.J. (1998) Overcoming the golden rule: Sympathy and empathy. In M.J. Bennett (ed.), Basic concepts in intercultural communication: Selected readings (pp. 191–214). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2008) Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Crosby, B.C., & Bryson, J.M. (2010) Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. Leadership Quarterly, 21(2): 211–230. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.003. Earley, P.C., & Ang, S. (2003) Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Flavell, J.H. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10): 906– 911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906. Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W.D. (2004) Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Goleman, D. (1998) Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Guirdham, M. (2011) Communicating across cultures at work (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Herring, C. (2009) Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74(2): 208–224. doi:10.1177/ 000312240907400203. Johnson, D.W. (2014) Reaching out (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Jourard, S.M. (1968) Growing awareness and the awareness of growth. In B.R. Patton & K. Giffin (eds), Interpersonal communication (pp. 456–465). New York: Harper & Row. Kennedy, D. (2008) Putting our differences to work: The fastest way to innovation, leadership, and high performance. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Liswood, L.A. (2010) The loudest duck: Moving beyond diversity while embracing differences to achieve success at work. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T.K. (2012) Intercultural communication in contexts (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Mineta, G.B. (2014) Don’t stick your chopsticks in a bowl of rice. Retrieved from http://blog.gaijinpot.com/dont-stick-chopsticks-bowl-rice/. Morgan, D.F., Shinn, C.W., & Ingle, M. (2017) Polity leadership: Leading from where you sit. New York: Routledge.

188

Leading with culturally mindful communication

Moua, M.N. (2010) Culturally intelligent leadership: Leading through intercultural interactions. New York: Business Expert Press. Nishishiba, M. (2012) Local government diversity initiatives in Oregon: An exploratory study. State and Local Government Review, 44(1): 55–66. doi:10.1177/0160323x12439475. Shiffrin, R.M., & Schneider, W. (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2): 127–190. doi:10.1037/0033295X.84.2.127. Smiles, S. (1860) Self-help: With illustrations of character and conduct. London: J. Murray. Turner, J.H. (1987) Toward a sociological theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 52(1): 15–27. doi:10.2307/2095389. Zander, R.S., & Zander, B. (2000) The art of possibility. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

189

INDEX

abstract notions, language and, 53 accents, 91 acculturation, 15 action, motivation and, 178–9 active strategies in intercultural communication, 39 Adams-Bass, V.N., Stevenson, H.C., & Kotzin, D.S., 106 adaptation, 177, 184–6; phases of, 181–2 adaptors, 84 adjourning teams, 130–31 administrators, importance of skills for, 3–8 affect displays, 79–81 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967), 8 ageism, 113 aggression see microaggression Allport, G.W., 106, 107, 109, 112, 114, 117, 177 ambiguous and arbitrary behavior, 73 American Psychological Association, 57 Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), 120 Amos, J.-A., 93 analysis, mindful communication and, 177, 183–4 Analysis Matrix for Mindful Communication, 183–4 antilocution, 113 anxiety, management of, 38–40 Anxiety Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory, 39, 181

190

arbitrary behavior, 73 Argyle, M., & Cook, M., 89 Argyle, M., Henderson, M., Bond, M., et al., 80 Asch, S.E., 133, 138 assessment of cultural differences, 17–28 attribution error, 42–3 attribution theory, 42 Auer, P., 56 authority in multicultural teamwork, 137 avoidance, 114; of conflict in multicultural teamwork, 140–41 Axtell, R.E., & Fornwald, M., 79 back-channel signals, 82–4 Barnlund, D.C., & Araki, S., 138 Barr, P.S., & Glynn, M.A., 23 barriers to culturally mindful communication: ageism, 113; antilocution, 113; avoidance, 114; communication challenges, 104–06; cultural moment, conversational racism, 113; cultural moment, microaggressive assumptions, 118; discrimination, 114; dominant group, 119; ethnocentrism, 110–12; ethnocentrism, core concepts in, 112; generalization, 109–10; implicit bias, 114–15; invisibility and making the invisible visible, 119; key words, 123; microaggression, 115–19; microaggression, effects of

Index

exposure to, 116; microaggression, forms of, 116–17; microassault, 116–17; microinsults, 117; microinvalidations, 117; physical attack, 114; prejudice, 112–14; privilege, 119; privilege, forms of, 120; questions for discussion, 122; racism, 113; segregation, 114; sexism, 113; social privilege, 119–20; stereotype threat, 109; stereotypes, 93, 95–6, 106–10; stereotypes, implicit bias and, 115; stereotypical media characterizations, 110; summary, 121–2; written assignments, 122 Baugh, J., 92 Beattie, G.H., 79 Beaverton Diversity Task Force (DTF), 158 Beeghly, E., 106, 109 behavior models, 15 Belin, P., Bestelmeyer, P.E.G., Latinus, M., & Watson, R., 90 Belin, P., Fecteau, S., & Bédard, C., 90 Benavides, A.D., 163 Benavides, A.D., & Hernandez, J.C. T., 157 Bennett, M.J., 182 Berger, C.R., 39 Berger, C.R., & Calabrese, R.J., 38 Berger, J., Wagner, D.G., & Zelditch, M., 134 Bex, T., & Watts, R.J., 91 bilingual pay policies, 163 Bizumic, B., & Duckitt, J., 112 Blair, I.V., Judd, C.M., & Chapleau, K.M., 95, 96 Bloemraad, I., 159 Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E., 175 Bond, R., & Smith, P.B., 138 Bonikowski, B., & Gidron, N., 22 Boros¸, S., Meslec, N., Curs¸eu, P.L., & Emons, W., 142 Bottger, P.C., 135 boyd, d.m., & Ellison, N.B., 56 Brislin, R.W., 16 Brislin, R.W., & Kim, E.S., 26 Brown, A., 56 Bryson, J., 154 Bucholtz, M., Bermudez, N., Fung, V., et al., 92 Bunderson, J.S., 134 Burger, J.M., Sanchez, J., Imberi, J.E., & Grande, L.R., 136 Burgoon, J.K., 45

Burgoon, J.K., & Hubbard, A.E., 44, 45 Burgoon, J.K., & Le Poire, B.A., 45 Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D.B., & Woodall, W.G., 87 Burgoon, J.K., Guerrero, L.K., & Floyd, K., 69, 77, 88 Burgoon, J.K., Le Poire, B.A., & Rosenthal, R., 45 Burgoon, J.K., Schuetzler, R., & Wilson, D.W., 84 Burnette, J.L., Pollack, J.M., & Forsyth, D.R., 133 Burns, C., Barton, K., & Kerby, S., 7 Byrne, D., 136 Cady, S.H., & Valentine, J., 132 Cai, D., & Fink, E., 142 Campbell, D.E., 159 Cargile, A.C., Maeda, E., Rodriguez, J., & Rich, M., 91 Catholic Legal Immigration Network, 156 change: demographic change, 4; psychological resistance to, 185; social change, language and, 56–8; stress of, 185–6; workforce change, 6–8 Chapman, E.N., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M., 115 Chen, S.X., Hui, N.H.H., Bond, M.H., et al., 137 Cheng, C.Y., Chua, R.Y., Morris, M. W., & Lee, L., 131 Cheryan, S., & Bodenhausen, G.V., 109 Chiang, L.H., 89 Chisholm, J., 89 Choucri, N., & Mistree, D., 4, 5 Chua, E.G., & Gudykunst, W.B., 142 Chuang, A., & Roemer, R.C., 107 Cialdini, R.B., 136, 137 Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., & Kallgren, C.A., 136 Cialdini, R.B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D.W., et al., 137, 139 Civil Rights Act (1964, 1991), 8 Civil Service Reform Act (1978), 7 Clark, C.L., Shaver, P.R., & Abrahams, M.F., 53 Clinton, Hillary, 96 code switching, 56 Colby, S.L., & Ortman, J.M., 4, 155 collaboration, communication skills and, 176 collective action, production of, 175 collectivism, 18

191

Index

colorism, 95–6 comfort zones, 185 Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), 41, 181 communication challenges, 1–3; barriers to culturally mindful communication, 104–06; community work with multicultural stakeholders, 151–4; cultural differences, 12–13; intercultural communication, 32–4; leading with culturally mindful communication, 169–75; multicultural teamwork, 127–9; nonverbal communication, 67–8; verbal communication, 50–52 communication expectancies, 44 communication skills, centrality of, 186 communication styles: accommodation to, 41–2; dimensions of, 17 community work with multicultural stakeholders: bilingual pay policies, 163; communication challenges, 151–4; community leaders, working with, 163–4; consecutive interpretation, 162; cultural moment, organization of multicultural community forum, 158; enabling broader and diverse communities to engage, 155, 159–63; engagement with multicultural stakeholders, 154–5; external stakeholders, 154; framework for culturally mindful engagement, 155–65; interpretation, 162; key words, 166; leadership development opportunities, provision of, 164–5; Managing (VEM) Diversity model, 155–65; multilingual needs, preparation for, 162–3; New Public Management (NPM), 154; partners perspective, 155; personal connections, development of, 159; promotion of inclusive and sustainable engagement, management for, 155, 163–5; questions for discussion, 166; safe space, creation of, 160–62; sharing cultural backgrounds, 161–2; simultaneous interpretation, 162; social networks, personal connections and, 159; summary, 165–6; translation, 162; valuing

192

and understanding community, 155, 156–7; whispering, 162; written assignments, 166 complementing function, 74 complex public problems, 176–7 compromising style of conflicthandling, 141–2 Condon, J.C., & Masumoto, T., 62 conflict: conditions for, 139–40; cultural norms and conflicthandling styles, 142–3; dealing with, 139–43; styles for handling, 140 conflicting function, 74, 77 connotative meaning, 53 consecutive interpretation, 162 consistency, 136–7 context knowledge, 180, 181 continuous improvement cycle, 184–6 convergence, 41 conversational styles, 83–4 Cordero, R., DiTomaso, N., & Farris, G.F., 131 Cotton, G., 69 creativity, teamwork and fostering of, 131–2 criminal justice investigation, 73 Crosby, B.C. & Bryson, J.M., 176 cross-cultural communication, 47n1 cultural coherence, state boundaries and, 87 cultural differences: acculturation, 15; assessment of, 17–28; behavior, models portrayed in, 15; collectivism, 18; communication challenge, 12–13; communication style, dimensions of, 17; cultural moments, monochronic vs. polychronic cultures, 27; cultural moments, power distance, 21; cultural unit, 16; culture defined, 14–17; differentiation of cultures, dimensions of, 17–18; enculturation, 15; high-context orientation, 25; individualism, 18; individualism vs. collectivism, 17, 18–20; indulgence vs. restraint, 17; intergenerational culture, 16–17; key words, 29; learned culture, 15; learning culture, process of, 15; low-context orientation, 25; masculinity vs. femininity, 17; meaning, culture as system of, 14; monochronic (M-time) cultures, 26, 27; monochronic vs. polychronic

Index

communication style, 17, 18, 26–8; national cultures, dimensions of, 17; objective culture, 14; orientation, high- vs. low-context communication style, 17, 18, 25–6; orientation, long- vs. short-term, 17; polychronic (P-time) cultures, 26, 27; power distance, 20–22, 23; power distance, high vs. low, 17, 18, 20–22; questions for discussion, 28–9; shared culture, 16; similarities and, assessment of, 17–28; social modernization, 19; summary, 28; trustworthiness, concept of, 19; uncertainty avoidance, 22; uncertainty avoidance, high vs. low, 17, 18, 22–4; written assignments, 28–9 cultural display rules, 80–81 cultural diversity in communities, 4–6 cultural frame of reference, 35 cultural identity, language and, 55–6 cultural moments, 9; attribution bias, 44; conflict, dealing with, 143; connotative meaning, 53; context knowledge, 181; conversational racism, 113; cultural display rule, 80–81; handshake grip, 72; Hiroshima Memorial Cenotaph, 59; microaggressive assumptions, 118; monochronic vs. polychronic cultures, 27; multicultural community forum, organization of, 158; power distance, 21 cultural unit, 16 culturally mindful communication: administrators, importance of skills for, 3–8; cultural diversity in communities, 4–6; demographic changes and, 4; globalization and, 4–5; intercultural communication, 36–8; intercultural communication skills, need for, 8; key considerations for, 133–43; leading with, 169–88; non-white Americans (1960 and 2010), 5; process and components of, 178; skills and leadership, 175–7; skills for administrators, importance of, 3–8; social equity, concept of, 5–6; workforce change, 6–8 Cummins, J., & Early, M., 55

De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R., 140 De Dreu, C.K.W., & West, M.A., 132 De Mente, B., 61 Deal, T.E., & Kennedy, A.A., 16 demographic changes, 4 Denhardt, J.V., & Denhardt, R.B., 154 denotative meaning, 53 Devitt, M., & Sterelny, K., 55 differentiation of cultures, dimensions of, 17–18 direct verbal style, 58–61 Disabilities Act (1990), 8 discrimination, 114 disintegration and reintegration, dynamics of, 185–6 divergence, 41 dominant group, 119 dominating style of conflicthandling, 141 downgraders, 60 DuBrin, A.J., 62 Dukakis, Michael, 3–4 Earley, P.C. & Ang, S., 180 Earley, P.C., & Mosakowski, E., 131 eBizMBA, 56 egocentric bias, 43 Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V., & Ellsworth, P., 81 Ekman, Paul, 73, 74, 78, 80, 84 Ellsberg, M., 88 Elovainio, M., van den Bos, K., Linna, A., et al., 23 Ely, R.J., & Thomas, D.A., 131 emblems, 78–9 emotions, monitoring and acknowledgement of, 182 empathy, 182 Emswiller, T., Deaux, K., & Willits, J.E., 136 enculturation, 15 engagement: enabling broader and diverse communities to engage, 155, 159–63; framework for culturally mindful engagement, 155–65; with multicultural stakeholders, 154–5; promotion of inclusive and sustainable engagement, management for, 155, 163–5 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (US, 2001), 8 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Act (1972) and policy, 8 Equal Pay Act (1963), 8

193

Index

Esser, J.K., 133 ethnocentrism, 110–12; core concepts in, 112 expectation states theory, 134 Expectation Violation Theory (EVT), 45 expertise, recognition of, 134–5 external attribution, 42 external stakeholders: community work with multicultural stakeholders, 154; leading with culturally mindful communication, 176–7 eye contact displays, 77, 88–90 Fairclough, N., 55 Falk, G., & Falk, U.A., 17 Falk, J.S., 91 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 114 Feghali, E., 87 Festinger, L., 136, 137 Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E., 107 Flavell, J.H., 183 foot-in-the-door technique, 137 Freedman, J.L., & Fraser, S.C., 137 Freeman, R.E., 154 Freud, Sigmund, 77 Friesen, Wallace, 78, 80, 84 Fu, J.K., Tata, J., Yukl, G., et al., 23 Fuertes, J.N., Gottdiener, W.H., Martin, H., et al., 91 Fukushima, Y., 59 fundamental needs, satisfaction of, 178 future communication, 184 Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A.C., & Ota, H., 41 Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H., 41 Garrett, J.T., & Garrett, M.W., 89 Garrett, R., 120 Gee, J.P., 15 Geertz, Clifford, 14 gender-inclusive language, 57 gender-neutral language, 57–8 Gendron, M., Roberson, D., van der Vyver, J.M., & Barrett, L.F., 92 generalization, 109–10 Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S., 55 Giles, H., 41 Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N., 41 Giles, H., Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Anderson, M.C., 41 globalization, 4–5

194

Goffan, H., 79 Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W.D., 176 Goldstein, B.Z., & Tamura, K., 61 Goleman, D., 182 Gonzalez-Barrera, A., 107, 108 Gooden, S.T., 5, 155 Goodman, D.J., 120 Gordon, J., & Johnson, M., 116 Gouldner, A.W., 136 Gove, T.G., 115 Greenfield. P.M., 19 Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M.R., 114 Greenwald, A.G., & Krieger, L.H., 114, 115 Greenwald, A.G., Smith, C.T., Sriram, N., et al., 115 groupthink, avoidance of, 133 Gruenfeld, D.H., 132 Grutterink, H., Van der Vegt, G.S., Molleman, E., & Jehn, K.A., 134 Gudykunst, W.B., 14, 17, 18, 38–9 Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y., 45, 58, 60, 87 Gudykunst, W.B., & Nishida, T., 40 Guerrero, L.K., & Gross, M.A., 53 Guirdham, M., 178 Gutman, A., 8 Gygax, P., Gabriel, U., Sarrasin,O., Oakhill, J., & Garnham, A., 57 Hall, E.T., 17, 25–6, 58, 87, 135, 138 Hall, J.A., & Knapp, M.L., 90 Hamamura, T., 19 haptics (touch), 77, 85–8 Harrison, G., 91–2 Hartley, L.C., & Preston, D.R., 91, 92 Hecht, M.L., Jackson, R.L., & Ribeau, S.A., 92 Heider, F., 42 Hein, J., 159 Heine, S.J., 62 Hellinger, M., Bussmann, H., & Motschenbacher, H., 57 Henderson, V., & Henshaw, P., 93 Henningsen, D.D., Cruz, M.G., & Morr, M.C., 73 Herring, C., 179 Hertenstein, M.J., Verkamp, J.M., Kerestes, A.M., & Holmes, R.M., 85 Hewstone, M., & Jaspars, J.M.F., 43 high-contact culture, 87 high-context orientation, 25 Hochschild, J.L., & Weaver, V., 95 Hoebel, E.A., & Frost, E.L., 15 Hofstede, G.H., 19, 58

Index

Hofstede, G.H., & Hofstede, G.J., 18 Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkov, M., 17, 18, 20, 22–3, 138 Holler, J., & Stevens, R., 79 Hollingshead, A.B., & Fraidin, S.N., 134 Hood, C., 154 illustrators, 79 implicit bias, 114–15 indirect verbal style, 58–61 individualism, 18; collectivism vs., 17, 18–20 indulgence vs. restraint, 17 ingroup vs. outgroup attribution difference, 43 intentional behavior, 69–71 interactive strategies, intercultural communication and, 39–40 interactive symbolic exchange, 35 intercultural communication: active strategies, 39; anxiety, management of, 38–40; Anxiety Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory, 39; attribution error, 42–3; attribution theory, 42; challenges for, 9; Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), 41; communication challenges, 32–4; communication expectancies, 44; communication styles, accommodation to, 41–2; convergence, 41; cross-cultural communication, 47n1; cultural frame of reference, 35; cultural moment, attribution bias, 44; culturally mindful communication, 36–8; definition of, 35–6; divergence, 41; dynamics of, 38–45; egocentric bias, 43; Expectation Violation Theory (EVT), 45; external attribution, 42; ingroup vs. outgroup attribution difference, 43; interactive strategies, 39–40; interactive symbolic exchange, 35; intercultural-intracultural continuum, 36, 37; internal attribution, 42; key words, 47; meaning, attribution of, 42–5; mindfulness, 37; mindlessness, 37; passive strategies, 39; process of, 32–47; questions for discussion, 46–7; self-disclosure, 40; shared meaning, 35–6; skills in, need for, 8; summary, 46; ultimate attribution error, 44;

uncertainty, management of, 38–40; written assignments, 46–7 intercultural-intracultural continuum, 36, 37, 183–4 intergenerational culture, 16–17 internal attribution, 42 International Public Management Association for Human Resources, 163 interpersonal relationships, multicultural teamwork and, 132 interpretation, 162 intigrating style of conflict-handling, 142 invisibility (and making the invisible visible), 119 Isurin, L., Winford, D., & De Bot, K., 56 Jackson, R.L., 92 Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., et al., 134, 139 Jacob, C., Guéguen, N., & Boulbry, G., 136 Jacoby-Senghor, D.S., Sinclair, S., & Shelton, J.N., 115 Janis, I.L., 133 Jasilek, N., 56 Jayson, S., 57 Jehn, K.A., & Mannix, E.A., 140 Jehn, K.A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S.M.B., 139 Jiang, C.X., Chua, R.Y.J., Kotabe, M., & Murray, J.Y., 131 Johnson, A.G., 119, 120 Johnson, D.W., 179 Jolls, C., & Sunstein, C.R., 115 Jones, E.E., & Davis, K.E., 42 Jones, R., 162 Jost, J.T., Rudman, L.A., Blair, I.V., et al., 115 Jourard, S.M., 185–6 Kaskan, E.R., & Ho, I.K., 116 Kaufman, C.F., Lane, P.M., & Lindquist, J.D., 26 Kay, P., & Kempton, W., 55 Keidan, G., 159, 161, 163, 164 Kelley, H.H., 42, 43 Kellough, J.E., 7 Kennedy, D., 175 key words, 10; barriers to culturally mindful communication, 123; community work with multicultural stakeholders, 166; cultural differences, 29;

195

Index

intercultural communication, 47; leading with culturally mindful communication, 188; multicultural teamwork, 145; nonverbal communication, 98; verbal communication, 64 Kim, H.S., 135 Kim, K., 87 Kim, M.H., 62 kinesics (body movement and facial expression), 77, 78–84 King, Rodney, 116 Kingsley, Donald, 7 Kito, M., 40 Klatzky, R.L., Martin, G.L., & Kane, R.A., 93 Kolawole, E., 96 Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Ilgen, D.R., 129 Kras, E.S., 87 Krauss, R.M., Chen, Y., & Chawla, P., 79 Kroeber, A.L., & Kluckhohn, C., 14 Krumholz, N., & Forester, J., 155 Labor Department (2016), 6 Laing, R.D., 117 Langer, E.J., & Moldoveanu, M., 37 Langer, Ellen, 37 language, function of, 52–3 Lattimer, R.L., 132 Laustsen, L., Petersen, M.B., & Klofstad, C. A., 91 leadership: communication skills and, 175–6; for culturally mindful communication, 175–7; development opportunities, provision of, 164–5 leading with culturally mindful communication: action, motivation and, 178–9; adapt, 177, 181–2, 184–6; adaptation phases, 181–2; analysis, 177, 183–4; Analysis Matrix for Mindful Communication, 183–4; Anxiety Uncertainty Management theory, 181; becoming a culturally mindful communicator, 177–86; change, stress of, 185–6; collaboration, communication skills and, 176; collective action, production of, 175; comfort zone, 185; Communication Accommodation Theory, 181; communication challenges, 169–75; communication skills, centrality of, 186; complex public problems, 176–7; context

196

knowledge, 180, 181; continuous improvement cycle, 184–6; cultural moment, context knowledge, 181; culturally mindful communication skills, 175–7; disintegration and reintegration, dynamics of, 185–6; emotions, monitoring and acknowledgement of, 182; empathy, 182; external stakeholders, 176–7; fundamental needs, satisfaction of, 178; future communication, 184; intercultural-intracultural continuum, 183–4; key words, 188; leadership, communication skills and, 175–6; leadership for culturally mindful communication, 175–7; learn, 177, 179–80, 184–6; metacognition, 183; mindfulness, 177; motivation, 177–9; network governance, communication skills and, 176; New Public Management (NPM), 179; observe, 177, 182–3; otherknowledge, 179–80; “platinum rule,” Bennet’s notion of a, 182; psychological resistance to change, 185; questions for discussion, 187; self-knowledge, 179; summary, 186–7; written assignments, 187 learned behavior, 69–71 learned culture, 15 Leathers, D.G., & Eaves, M.H., 88, 91, 93 Lee, K.L., 142 Leighninger, M., 161, 164 Leonard, R., & Locke, D.C., 92 Leonardi, P.M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C., 56 Lerman, A.E., McCabe, K.T., & Sadin, M.L., 95, 96 Lieber, L.D., 115 liking strategy, 136, 138–9 limited-number tactic, 137 limited-time tactic, 137 linguistic relativity hypothesis, 54 Linguistic Society of America, 57 Lippmann, Walter, 106 Liswood, L.A., 16, 17, 175 Littlepage, G.E., & Mueller, A.L., 135 Littlepage, G.E., Schmidt, G.W., Whisler, E.W., & Frost, A.G., 135 Livingston, R.W., 96 low-contact culture, 87

Index

low-context orientation, 25 Lu, A., Zhang, H., He, G., Zheng, D., & Hodges, B.H., 61 Lukensmeyer, C.J., 159, 160, 161, 164 Lungeanu, A., & Contractor, N.S., 132 McCain, John, 115 McCarthy, A., Lee, K., Itakura, S., & Muir, D.W., 89 McCoy, M., & Scully, P., 161–2, 164 McDaniel, E., & Andersen, P.A., 87 McGee, William J., 110 McIntosh, Peggy, 120 McLeod, P.L., Lobel, S.A., & Cox, T. H., 132 MacPhail, L.H., Roloff, K.S., & Edmondson, A.C., 134 Maddox, K.B., 96 Maddox, K.B., & Gray, S.A., 96 Maier, G.A., Zhang, Q., & Clark, A., 40 Managing (VEM) Diversity model, 155–65 Mantle, T., 59 Maricchiolo, F., Livi, S., Bonaiuto, M., & Gnisci, A., 79 Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S., 19, 62 Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T.K., 58, 79, 90, 162, 179 masculine-generic language, 57 masculinity vs. femininity, 17 Mastro, D., 106, 107 Matsumoto, D., Olide, A., Schug, J., Willingham, B., & Callan, M., 80 Matsumoto, D., Seung HeeYoo, & Fontaine, J., 81 Matsumoto, David, 81 Maude, B., 14 meaning: attribution of, 42–5; culture as system of, 14; popular media perspective on, 99n1 Meeus, W.H.J., & Raaijmakers, Q.A. W., 137, 138 Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S.R., 79, 99n1 Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M., 99n1 Meier, K.J., & O’Toole, L.J., 7 Merino, N.L., 22 Merkel, E., Maass, A., & Frommelt, L., 57 Messing, S., Jabon, M., & Plaut, E., 96 metacognition, 183 Meyer, E., 17–18, 57–8, 60

microaggression, 115–19; effects of exposure to, 116; forms of, 116–17 microassault, 116–17 microinsults, 117 microinvalidations, 117 Milgram, S., 137, 138 Milliken, F.J., & Martins, L.L., 139 Milliken, F.J., Bartel, C.A., & Kurtzberg, T.R., 131, 132, 134 mindfulness: intercultural communication, 37; leading with culturally mindful communication, 177; multicultural teamwork and, 135 mindlessness, 37 Mineta, G.B., 180 Minnis, G., 156 Minnowbrook Conference (1968), 5 minority influence, 132 Mohrman, S.A., 131 Monno, V., & Khakee, A., 156 monochronic (M-time) cultures, 26, 27 monochronic vs. polychronic communication style, 17, 18, 26–8 Montgomery, M., & Johnson, E., 92 Moore, C., 91 Morgan, D.F., & Cook, B.J., 154 Morgan, D.F., Shinn, C.W., & Ingle, M., 175, 176 Morris, D., 85 Moscovici, Serge, 132 Mosher, F.C., 7 motivation, 177–9 Moua, M.N., 183 Mullen, B., & Goethals, G.R., 134 multicultural teamwork: adjourning teams, 130–31; authority, 137; avoidance of conflict, 140–41; benefits of multicultural teams, 131–3; communication challenges, 127–9; compromising style of conflict-handling, 141–2; conflict, dealing with, 139–43; conflict conditions, 139–40; conflict-handling styles, 140; conflict-handling styles, cultural norms and, 142–3; consistency, 136–7; creativity, teamwork and fostering of, 131–2; cultural moment, dealing with conflict, 143; culturally mindful communication, key considerations for, 133–43; dominating style of conflicthandling, 141; expectation states

197

Index

theory, 134; expertise, recognition of, 134–5; foot-in-the-door technique, 137; forming teams, 130–31; groupthink, avoidance of, 133; interpersonal relationships and, 132; intigrating style of conflict-handling, 142; key words, 145; liking strategy, 136, 138–9; limited-number tactic, 137; limited-time tactic, 137; mindfulness and, 135; minority influence, 132; mourning for teams, 130–31; norming with teams, 130–31; obliging style of conflict-handling, 141; performing with teams, 130–31; persuasion strategies, differences in, 135–9; persuasive techniques, use of, 138–9; process conflicts, 140; questions for discussion, 144–5; racially diverse teams, creativity in, 131–2; reciprocity strategy, 136, 139; relationship conflicts, 140; scarcity, 137; social proof, 136; stereotypes, self-fulfilling nature of, 134–5; storming with teams, 130–31; summary, 144; task conflicts, 140; team development, stages of, 130–31; teams and team processes, 129–31; written assignments, 144–5 multilingual needs, preparation for, 162–3 Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M., 162 Nadal, K.L., 116 National Academy of Public Administration (2000), 5 National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA), 8 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2005), 6 national cultures, dimensions of, 17 National Network for Immigrants and Refugee Rights, 156 National Women’s Center, 58 Nehring, D., Esteinou, R., & Alvarado, E., 17 Nemeth, C.J., 132 Nemeth, C.J., Brown, K., & Rogers, J., 132 network governance, communication skills and, 176 New Public Management (NPM): community work with

198

multicultural stakeholders, 154; leading with culturally mindful communication, 179 Nishishiba, M., 155, 179 Nishishiba, M., & Ritchie, L.D., 19 Nishishiba, M., Pearson, A., Cooper, T., et al., 155 Noack, R., & Gamio, L., 54 nonverbal communication: accents, 91; adaptors, 84; affect displays, 79–81; ambiguous and arbitrary behavior, 73; arbitrary behavior, 73; back-channel signals, 82–4; colorism, 95–6; communication challenges, 67–8; complementing function, 74; conflicting function, 74, 77; conversational styles, 83–4; criminal justice investigation, 73; cultural coherence, state boundaries and, 87; cultural display rules, 80–81; cultural moment, cultural display rule, 80–81; cultural moment, handshake grip, 72; emblems, 78–9; eye contact displays, 77, 88–90; forms of, 77–96; functions of nonverbal messages, 73–7, 99n2; haptics (touch), 77, 85–8; high-contact culture, 87; illustrators, 79; intentional behavior, 69–71; key words, 98; kinesics (body movement and facial expression), 77, 78–84; learned behavior, 69–71; lowcontact culture, 87; meaning, popular media perspective on, 99n1; nature of nonverbal messages, 69–73; oculesics (eye contact), 77, 88–90; paralanguage (vocal cues), 77, 90–93; physical appearance, 77, 93–6; pitch, 91; play, socializing force of, 85; questions for discussion, 97–8; regulating function, 74, 76–7; regulators, 81–2; repeating function, 74; SADFISH (sadness, anger, disgust, fear, interest, surprise, happiness), 80, 81; Standard English, accent and, 91–2; strategies for, formal teaching of, 71; substituting function, 74–6; summary, 96–7; touch, control and, 85–7, 87–8; turn-maintaining signals, 81, 83; turn-requesting signals, 81, 82; turn-taking, 81–2; turn-yielding signals, 81, 82; unplanned and

Index

unconscious behavior, 73; US “southern drawl,” 92; vocal characterizers, 92; vocal qualifiers, 90–92; vocal segregates, 93; written assignments, 97–8 norming with teams, 130–31 Norton, B., 55 Nosek, B.A., 114 Nunnally, S.C., 156 Nydell, M.K., 87–8 Obama, Barack, 96, 115 objective culture, 14 obliging style of conflict-handling, 141 observation, 177, 182–3 oculesics (eye contact), 77, 88–90 Okabe, R., 61 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 22 orientation: high- vs. low-context communication style, 17, 18, 25–6; long- vs. short-term, 17 Orji, R., 137, 139 Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T., 154 Osterhammel, J., & Petersson, N.P., 5 other-knowledge, 179–80 Pan, L., 86 paralanguage (vocal cues), 77, 90–93 partners perspective, 155 passive strategies in intercultural communication, 39 performing with teams, 130–31 person-oriented verbal style, 61; status-oriented verbal style vs., 61 personal connections, development of, 159 persuasion strategies, differences in, 135–9 persuasive techniques, use of, 138–9 Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F., & Ercolani, A.P., 136 Pettigrew, T.F., 44 Philips, S.U., 89–90 Philosophical Association of America, 57 physical appearance, 77, 93–6 physical attack, 114 Pidot, E., & Morell, P., 156, 163 Pierce, Chester, 116 Pinker, S., 55 pitch, 91 “platinum rule,” Bennet’s notion of a, 182

play, socializing force of, 85 polychronic (P-time) cultures, 26, 27 Portland, Office of Neighborhood Involvement City of, 156, 164–5 Portland Diversity and Civic Leadership (DCL) program, 165 Postmes, T., & Spears, R., 133 power distance, 20–22, 23; high vs. low, 17, 18, 20–22 prejudice, 112–14 Preston, D.R., 92 privilege, 119; forms of, 120 process conflicts in teamwork, 140 Project Implicit, 115 psychological resistance to change, 185 questions for discussion, 9–10; barriers to culturally mindful communication, 122; community work with multicultural stakeholders, 166; cultural differences, 28–9; intercultural communication, 46–7; leading with culturally mindful communication, 187; multicultural teamwork, 144–5; nonverbal communication, 97–8; verbal communication, 63–4 Quick, K., & Feldman, M., 155, 156 racially diverse teams, creativity in, 131–2 racism, 113 Rahim, M.A., 139 Rahim,M.A., & Bonoma, T.V., 140 reciprocity strategy, 136, 139 Reed, J., 56 Regan, D.T., 136 regulators, 81–2; regulating function of nonverbal communication, 74, 76–7 Rehabilitation Act (1973), 8 Reingen, P.H., 136 relationship conflicts, 140 repeating function, 74 Riccucci, N., 6 Roberts, N.C., 155 Roselaar, S.T., 17 Rubio, Marco, 93–4 Saad, G., Cleveland, M., & Ho, L., 18, 19 SADFISH (sadness, anger, disgust, fear, interest, surprise, happiness), 80, 81 safe space, creation of, 160–62

199

Index

Sakamoto, N., & Naotsuka, R., 82–4 Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E., & McDaniel, E.R., 17, 90, 92, 93 Sank Davis, L., Whitman, C., & Nadal, K.L., 117 Sapir, Edward, 54 Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, 54–5 Sarah, W., 93 Sauter, D.A., Eisner, F., Ekman, P., & Scott, S.K., 92 scarcity, 137 Schachter, H.L., & Yang, K., 155 Schmidt, S.M., & Yeh, R.S., 23 Scott, G., 61 segregation, 114 Seleskovitch, D., 162 self-construal, cultural differences in, 62 self-disclosure, 40 self-enhancement, verbal style of, 62 self-humbling verbal style, 62 self-knowledge, 179 sexism, 113 Shane, S., 23 Shao, R., Rupp, D.E., Skarlicki, D.P., & Jones, K.S., 23 shared cultural backgrounds, 161–2 shared culture, 16 shared meaning, 35–6 Shaw, J.B., & Barrett-Power, E., 131 Shiffrin, R.M., & Schneider, W., 180 Shuter, R., 87 similarities and, assessment of cultural differences and, 17–28 simultaneous interpretation, 162 skills: for administrators, importance of, 3–8; communication skills, centrality of, 186; leadership and, 175–7 Skinner, E., Monich, T., & Mansell, L., 91 Smiles, Samuel, 182 Smith, P.B., & Bond, M.H., 138 Snyder, M., Decker Tanke, E., & Berscheid, E., 109 social change, language and, 56–8 social equity, concept of, 5–6 social media, terminology of, 56 social modernization, 19 social networks, personal connections and, 159 social privilege, 119–20 social proof, 136 Solomon, M., 133 “southern drawl” in US, 92

200

Spacey, J., 26 Spencer, S.J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G., 109 Stahlberg, D., Sczesny, S., & Braun, F., 57 Standard English, accent and: nonverbal communication, 91–2 Standing Panel on Social Equity in Governance. (2000), 5 Stanley, D.A., Sokol-Hessner, P., Banaji, M.R., et al., 115 status elements in Asia: verbal communication, 61 status-oriented verbal style: verbal communication, 61 Steele, C.M., 109 Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J., 109 stereotype threat: barriers to culturally mindful communication, 109 stereotypes: barriers to culturally mindful communication, 93, 95–6, 106–10 stereotypes, implicit bias and: barriers to culturally mindful communication, 115 stereotypes, self-fulfilling nature of: multicultural teamwork, 134–5 stereotypical media characterizations: barriers to culturally mindful communication, 110 Stokols, E., 94 storming with teams: multicultural teamwork, 130–31 Stout, J.G., & Dasgupta, N., 57 strategies for, formal teaching of: nonverbal communication, 71 style across cultures, difference in: verbal communication, 58–62 substituting function: nonverbal communication, 74–6 Sue, D.W., 116, 117, 119 Sue, D.W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A.I., et al., 116 Sue, D.W., Capodilupo, C.M., & Holder, A.M.B., 116, 117 Sue, D.W., Capodilupo, C.M., Torino, G.C., et al., 116, 117 summaries, 9; barriers to culturally mindful communication, 121–2; community work with multicultural stakeholders, 165–6; cultural differences, 28; intercultural communication, 46; leading with culturally mindful communication, 186–7;

Index

multicultural teamwork, 144; nonverbal communication, 96–7; verbal communication, 63 Sumner, William G., 110 Sun, C., Liberman, R., Butler, A., et al., 107 Surowiecki, J., 133 Sussman, N.M., & Rosenfeld, H.M., 87 Svara, J.H., & Brunet, J.R., 5–6 Tajfel, H., 106 Takaki, R.T., 21 Tannen, D., 135 task conflicts, 140 Taylor, P., 4, 17 Taylor, S., & Sullivan, J., 139 team development, stages of, 130–31 teams and team processes, 129–31; see also multicultural teamwork Thatcher, Margaret, 91 thinking pattern, language and, 54–5 Thomas, K.W., 140 Ting-Toomey, S., 61, 62 Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L.C., 14, 15, 54, 62, 90, 110 Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., et al., 142 Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K.K., Shapiro, R.B., et al., 142 Tombs, A., & Hill, S.R., 91 Tomlinson, J., 4 touch, control and, 85–7, 87–8 Tran, A.G.T.T., Miyake, E.R., Martinez-Morales, V., & Csizmadia, A., 117 translation, 162 Trechter, S., & Bucholtz, M., 55 Triandis, H.C., 14, 18, 19 Trump, Donald, 94 trustworthiness, concept of, 19 Tuckman, B.W., 130, 133 Tuckman, B.W., & Jensen, M.A.C., 130 turn-maintaining signals, 81, 83 turn-requesting signals, 81, 82 turn-taking, 81–2 turn-yielding signals, 81, 82 Turner, J.H., 178 Tushman, M.L., 132 ultimate attribution error, 44 uncertainty: avoidance of, 22; avoidance of, high vs. low, 17, 18, 22–4; management of, 38–40

unplanned and unconscious behavior, 73 upgraders, 60 valuing and understanding community, 155, 156–7 Van den Bos, K., & Miedema, J., 23 Van der Zee, K., Atsma, N., & Brodbeck, F., 131 Van Dyne, L., & Saavedra, R., 132 Van Knippenberg, D., 131 Vegdahl, S., & Ben, H., 40 verbal communication: abstract notions, language and, 53; code switching, 56; communication challenges, 50–52; connotative meaning, 53; cultural identity, language and, 55–6; cultural moment, connotative meaning, 53; cultural moment, Hiroshima Memorial Cenotaph, 59; culture and, relationship between, 53–8; denotative meaning, 53; direct verbal style, 58–61; downgraders, 60; gender-inclusive language, 57; gender-neutral language, 57–8; indirect verbal style, 58–61; key words, 64; language, function of, 52–3; linguistic relativity hypothesis, 54; masculine-generic language, 57; person-oriented verbal style, 61; person-oriented vs. statusoriented verbal style, 61; questions for discussion, 63–4; Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, 54–5; self-construal, cultural differences in, 62; self-enhancement verbal style, 62; self-humbling verbal style, 62; social change, language and, 56–8; social media, terminology of, 56; status elements in Asia, 61; statusoriented verbal style, 61; style across cultures, difference in, 58–62; summary, 63; thinking pattern, language and, 54–5; upgraders, 60; written assignments, 63–4 visionPDX City of Portland, 160, 163–4 Vizzini, D., Nishishiba, M., Shannahan, A., et al., 164 vocal characterizers, 92 vocal qualifiers, 90–92 vocal segregates, 93

201

Index

Vrij, A., 73 Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K.P., & Bull, R., 73 Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J.M., 91, 92 Watson, O.M., & Graves, T.D., 87 Weber, Max, 14 Weimann, J.M., & Knapp, M.L., 81 Wellman, D.T., 119 Wells, R.A., 157 West, M.A., 132 whispering, 162 Whorf, Benjamin Lee, 54 William Institutes (UCLA), 7 Wolff, E.N., 22 Woodburn, Oregon, 162–3 workforce change, communication and, 6–8 written assignments, 9–10; barriers to culturally mindful communication, 122; community work with multicultural stakeholders, 166; cultural

202

differences, 28–9; intercultural communication, 46–7; leading with culturally mindful communication, 187; multicultural teamwork, 144–5; nonverbal communication, 97–8; verbal communication, 63–4 Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., Cook, K.S., et al., 62 Yoon, K., & Hollingshead, A., 134 York, D., 71 Yosso, T.J., Smith, W.A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D.G., 117 Yuan, Y.C., Bazarova, N.N., Fulk, J., & Zhang, Z.-X., 135 Yum, J.O., 61 Zander, Benjamin, 176 Zinn, H., 21 Zinzius, B., 40 Zong, J., & Batalova, J., 107