Analyze the Dynamics of Intercultural Interactions, Lesson 1. In this lesson, our objective is to explain the frameworks present in intercultural interactions. At the most fundamental level, we have 2 individuals who enter into an interaction. We enter into any interaction with our own biases and the other person has their biases. On top of that we have our own filters of what we expect of the other party. Our goal, ultimately, is to create a shared state of meaning in what we share with each other, whether through symbols, words, verbal or non-verbal cues and so on. This is extremely complicated. As we're rushing through our lives simply just to get the job done, for example, in the US culture. And in the Japanese culture, for example, we maybe want to learn how each other is getting along before we get the job done. Quite a different way and approach. Our verbal and non verbal layers of communication contain content, relational, and identity layers of meaning. What does that mean? A content layer of meaning refers to the factual information that we're sharing with each other. When the person communicating the message and the person receiving the message, send and receive the same content, then a shared meaning as occurred, at a relational level. Relation meaning refers to the state of relationship between two parties. Relational meeting is inferred with non-verbal cues. It conveys the power distance, power distance meaning is it an equal or unequal relationship? And relational distance, is it friendly, or unfriendly meaning. And at the third layer, the identity layer. It refers to, who am I? And, who are you in this conversation? It involves things like displays of respect or lack of respect and approval or disapproval. When studying intercultural interactions, one has to be aware of the values that make up a culture and four key types of values were identified in the business environment by Hofstede and Hofstede. One can use these four dimensions when thinking about what is going well or what is going wrong in an in intercultural interaction by understanding from what perspective the interactors are coming from and interpreting the others' words and actions. One of the dimensions is the individualist versus a collectivist approach. An individualist for example will focus on themselves and the introspective connection with me and the universe. In the collectivist perspective, one thinks of not me, but of us and how we will survive and thrive in our lives. There's a context that we are all in a life journey together. In the we, or the collectivist approach. For further explanation, an individualist will tend to have an internal locus of control, while the collectivist will tend to have an external locus on control. For example, in the US, the home is a symbol of individualism. From the stand-alone house to the separation of each room. In contrast, in Mexico, it is common to have an attached home and unlocked doors as well as a shared space in the common area to promote gathering. Within this Individualists versus collectivists dimension there's the use of language. And, the distinction that's made is a high and low context language usage. This generally refers to the level of direct or obvious nature of the language used in interactions. The second dimension highlighted by Hofstede and Hofstede in understanding intercultural interactions is power distance. Power distance refers to the perceived power that is either dispersed amongst us all all, in a low power distance culture. Verses power established at the top in a hierarchy as would happen in a high power distance culture. For example, in the US, it is common for the office structure for the boss to have a big office in the corner. Where as in Taiwan, in looking at a set of cubicles, you may not be able to identify who the boss is at all because they will be interdispersed amongst the team. A third dimension in the Hofstede and Hofstede model is uncertainty avoidance. As described as high and low uncertainty avoidance. There are cultures that value risk taking and others that value security. To a high avoidance of uncertainty culture, a low avoidance of uncertainty culture may appear brash and unthinking. Formal structures and formal rules are a requirement of strong uncertainty avoidance cultures, whereas creativity and freedom in decision making are valued in a weak uncertainty of avoidance culture. The fourth dimension that's quite significant in the model of Hofstede and Hofstede is femininity versus masculinity. This one is quite interesting, as in various cultures this agenda of femininity versus masculinity is progressing very quickly in terms of moving towards equality. There are also other dimensions that are considered around cultural variability. And those include ethnicity, religion, gender, generation, social class, and social structure. As you may guess, language is a very powerful and omnipresent force and we wanted dig a little deeper into the concept that was brought up earlier. Low context cultures use a lot of directness. As you can see form this table, these cultures value individualistic values, linear logic, direct verbal style, matter of fact tone, informal verbal style, and assertiveness. For example, the United States, a very famous saying is "say what you mean and mean what you say." In a high context culture, there is collectivist values, spiral logic, indirect verbal style, understanding an animated tone, formal verbal style, and reticence, and sometimes, silence. In Japan, a very popular saying is, "don't say something that will hurt someone else". In indirect verbal styles, one must infer a meaning. In fact, it is the listener's job to guess the correct meaning of a statement. In a low context culture, it is the responsibility of the speaker to make clear what they want to be understood by the listener. Take some time and reflect on this question. If you can slow down your mind and ask yourself various questions about a culture you can maybe learn the tendencies of that culture and the person, in particular, that you're interacting with. For example, what is the value of an activity as meaningful in one's life? That is a great question to consider for yourself and for the person that you are interacting with. Another great question that will illicit some understanding for you is, what is the relationship between your culture or the other person's culture and nature? And that may have formed some of the reasons for their choices and behaviors. And finally, another great question is, what is the time focus of human life? These three questions and others can be great dinnertime conversation topics or great topics of friends over drinks. At the local social establishment. And could be worth hours and hours of great dialogue.
