Cultural Miscommunication In The Workplace: A Critical Incident Analysis

The Incident

In the above scenario, it can be seen that George, acting as a mentor asks Bo, a junior manager at Aquam regarding the issues he is facing in speaking up at meetings. George expresses his concerns regarding Bo’s participation level in meetings and assumes that he is facing problems understanding slang phrases and words. He has even provided Bo a book of idioms to help him understand the slangs and idioms used by presenters in meetings. Bo explains that the meetings he has observed in his country are different from the ones he is attending. He states that Chinese people believe in keeping quiet if they do not agree with something but that does not mean they have nothing to say. He uses the Chinese idiom, “A wise head makes a closed mouth” to make George understand. George encourages him to speak out his mind during meetings but Bo says that his culture and his weakness in the language restrict him. He suggests George on being asked that the presenter in the meeting could ask each person about their thoughts and ideas.

The Something’s up! Cycle is used here to reflect on the description of the incident presented above. The cycle includes four stages namely something’s up! Stage, the Suspension of judgment stage, the making sense stage and the Informed action stage (Norquest.ca, 2018).

When I watched the video, I initially felt that the mentor George was correct in his way of approaching Bo. He was not rude to Bo and asked him gently regarding the problems he is facing. George even gave Bo a book of idioms to help him understand the slang phrases used during meetings. However, after close examination I found that George could have been more understanding and appreciative of Bo’s problems. To George, speaking up in meetings is not an unusual or difficult task to perform but for Bo, it relates to his culture. George thinks that the book of idioms would be enough for Bo to improve his peaking skills but he fails to understand the cultural implications. As Bo mentioned, Chinese people give much value to silence than speaking up.

I think George should have tried to hear more from Bo and understand the situation from his perspective. Instead, George assumed that language was the only problem that is restricting Bo from speaking up.  If I place myself in Bo’s situation, I would have similar feelings as Bo had while George was making assumptions about his problems. However, I also think that George too had little fault in this situation because his culture and language restricts him from understanding the problems of Bo.

Analysis of the Incident

The miscommunication that arose in the given situation is mostly due to the different perspective points of the two. According to George, it is normal to have a conversation or a performance feedback with Bo to understand his situation. Bo however sees performance feedback as something that should be directed by the supervisor that is George. When it comes to communication styles of George and Bo, George demonstrates discomfort with silence while Bo views silence as necessary. This is visible from George’s repeated initiation to Bo to speak up without pausing. It must be noted that the Chinese culture attaches great value to pause and silence. To them, pausing and being silent during meetings demonstrate praise, disagreement, protest or agreement, which must be respected.  In terms of participation, George expects Bo to provide reasons for his silence even when he has something to speak or say. Bo, on the other hand, narrates stories and indirectly tries to suggest understanding his situation. Here, the cultural difference is visible from the way both participate in the situation and expect the other to respond ‘positively’. As per the cultural tradition of George, the degree of participation and initiative to communicate first are self-directed. Bo’s culture in contrast upholds leader-directed initiative and participation. These differences reveal the degree of directness, power distance and role of context in participation. The cultural orientations display such variations because of the differences in the culture of Australia and China. I think the Hofstede’s cultural dimension is thus important to understand the cultural variations between these two nations. According to the Hosftede scale, Australia scores quite low in the Power Distance Index (PDI). This leads to the fact that hierarchy in the Australian culture is formed for convenience only. Managers or supervisors mostly depend on employees for expertise. China, on the other hand, scores much higher in PDI thus revealing that the culture there promotes hierarchy and inequality in power. Bo’s attitude towards George could now be clearly understood from this power distance perspective. The fact that Bo’s culture promotes the subordinate-superior relationship and individuals are influenced by formal authority, Bo expects George to command or direct him since he is the supervisor.

Instead of understanding the actual issue with Bo, George interprets the issue as only a language issue. He fails to understand the real issue that Bo faces which is cultural miscommunication. Bo had to make the effort to bring the conversation directly to the real issue. Apart from that, it is also evident that George did not find Bo’s idea of directing the meeting convener to ask each individual about their opinions convincing and thus tried to avert it. The disconnection between the two cultures is evident here because the strategy proposed by Bo was in fact very good but since George views this as a waste of time he does not make any effort and instead states that it is not his responsibility. It is thus important for George to understand that in order to help Bo, he must change his perception and behavior. Certain short-term and long-term goals are there that can be set by George to help Bo feel comfortable in the meetings and respond. In addition, Bo could also set himself few goals to overcome his problems. The first important objective of George must be to share his perspective without attaching any prejudice. For example, when he says to Bo, “I assume language is the issue here”, he perceives the situation from his own cultural and objective perspective. In case of Bo, he must develop good understanding and accuracy of the shared meanings. Another short-term goal that George could set is to express his opinions about the suggestions given by Bo about asking each person in the meeting to speak their thoughts. As we could see that George tried to avoid the suggestion by Bo stating that it falls outside his area of responsibility. Bo could become accustomed to the communication style of his workplace especially in situations that are increasingly demanding.

Short-Term and Long-Term Goals

The long-term goals may be deduced from the short-term goals. George could assist Bo in improving his English communication skills. Other than that, George could also take cues from the perspective points of Bo and utilize these for encouraging cultural innovation and creativity. Bo could engage more in discussions with his mentor and colleagues and try to unveil the opportunities and implications of adjusting into the prevalent culture on personal or interpersonal level.

The above analysis presents insightful explanation on critical incidents relating to cultural miscommunication. Critical incidents in cultural perspective refer to the situation where some cultural mishaps due to poor understanding and communication lead to certain unwanted situations. However, critical incidents can also be yielded to offer a wealthy, individual perspective of life that assists understanding of the concerns and barriers people confront and enlightens possibilities for enhancement.

The way George (who hailed from Australia) responded to the issues faced by Bo (from China), one of the employees of Aquam, led to the critical incident. George was unable to comprehend the actual issue confronted by Bo because of the cultural distance between them. Bo, on the other hand, failed to communicate his issues properly and used indirect instances rather to make his mentor understand. While George demonstrated a behavior that was more inclined towards subjectivity and presumptions, Bo was more subdued and introspective. George was thus feeling increasing uneasy with Bo’s silence and long pauses between statements. The resulting incident was that Bo was unable to communicate his problem and his suggestion to resolve the problem clearly. George was incapable of going beyond the linguistic barrier and understands the cultural influence and thus failed to, or even tried to accept Bo’s suggestion.

In my view, the outcomes of this incident discussed above would have great influence on the way organizational managers or supervisors treat their employees with diverse backgrounds. I found that George was quite indifferent towards Bo’s actual problems and although he was polite, his approach was wrong. When Bo suggested the method that the convener or presenter of the meeting should ask each member about their ideas, George ignored it saying that it was not his responsibility. In this situation, instead of avoiding and neglecting Bo’s suggestion, George could have assured him that he would give this suggestion to the presenters. The critical incident also led to the fact that Bo went away disappointed and learning nothing from the discussion with his mentor who was supposed to teach him the etiquettes of meeting in the Australian culture. In addition, Bo had to bend his ways of dealing with such situations as he told his mentor that he would find other ways to convince the managers. I think this outcome could have been averted. I must also assert that Bo should also have made his issues clear because George is not supposed to understand the significance of silence and pauses as he does not belong to his culture. Apart from that, Bo could have made it clear in the beginning that he is having difficulties speaking up not because of language only but because he finds it disrespectful to interrupt in between.

Conclusion

It is therefore necessary for George and Bo both to change their ways of behaving within the confinements of their own culture. If they fail to change their behavior, then the problems would keep escalating and Bo might even have to face insults and embarrassment in his workplace. Further, it will become difficult for Bo to cope with the pressure of speaking up in meetings and he might feel inferior to others. This would have a negative influence on the organization which might hamper its progress especially in terms of maintaining diversity. In case of George, the purpose for which he had taken up the mentorship program for Bo would yield no result and his professional development would be limited. As a senior Vice President of the company, the pressure of maintaining diversity in the workplace might also take a toll on George. The Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, which was started by the company, would go in vain if George fails to comprehend the actual issue and does not change his behavior.

In contrast to this, if both participants in the mentorship program change their behaviors and communicate and understand more clearly, more positives would come out. If George changes his behavior of stereotyping individuals from other cultures as having only the issue of language then he would be able to address the problem more clearly. Changing organizational behavior involves commitment and the attitude where one is able to shed his or her ego and accept the culturally different employee as a part. It is also imperative to state that Bo too must make an extra effort to understand the other culture. If he succeeds to change his behavior then he would be able to communicate easily with his colleagues and mentor. In addition, if Bo shows an increased trust in his peers and supervisors, he could open up more and share his experiences. As Bachmann, Gillespie and Priem (2015) suggest, “Trust plays a fundamental role in facilitating social exchange”. Apart from this, changing behavior would result in an increased productivity in meetings where each individual could share his or her innovative idea for the benefit of the company. 

References:

Bachmann, R., Gillespie, N., & Priem, R. (2015). Repairing trust in organizations and institutions: Toward a conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 36(9), 1123-1142.

Norquest.ca (2018). The Something’s Up! Cycle. [online] Norquest.ca. Available at: https://www.norquest.ca/NorquestCollege/media/pdf/centres/intercultural/CI/The-Somethings-Up-Cycle.pdf [Accessed 6 Jun. 2018].

Norquest.ca. (2018). Critical Incidents For Intercultural Communication In The Workplace Video Transcripts. Retrieved from https://www.norquest.ca/NorquestCollege/media/pdf/centres/intercultural/CI/Critical-Incidents-for-Intercultural-Communication-in-the-Workplace_Video-Transcripts.pdf