Indirect communication is common in Asia, the Middle East, Latin / South America and many Mediterranean and African countries. Direct communication is the norm in Western Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other parts typically considered “The West”.

People from direct communication cultures strive to quickly relate information with great clarity when conversing, so as to not waste the listener’s time – a precious commodity valued by many direct communication cultures. Individuals from indirect communication cultures strive to maintain the honor and face of both the speaker and listener. Therefore, the speaker says what s/he thinks the listener wants to hear, even if this is not the unadulterated truth. Such face-saving is considered kind, polite and respectful.

This can be confusing for those of us who are direct communicators because we expect communication to be clear and precise, where what is said is what is meant. For direct communicators, their word is their bond.

Indirect communication relies on context, particularly eye contact, facial expressions, tone of voice, and body language rather than the spoken word. By paying attention to non-verbal language, listeners can decipher the true message. If you come from a direct culture, it may take time to understand the nuances of indirect communication where what is not said can be as important as what is said. People from direct cultures must learn to listen hard to avoid missing the subtleties. They may also need to temper their speech pattern to not appear overly blunt and rude.

Clues to help you decipher indirect communication:

• In Azerbaijan, people apologize for saying no to a request. They may add phrases such as “I wish it were possible”, “If it were possible I would do it” or “In the future it may be possible.”
• Be on the lookout for the word “maybe” because it can be used to make a direct statement indirect. Rather than tell me this blog needs to be edited, a Chinese publisher might say, “Maybe this blog should be edited.”
• If you hear phrases such as “I will see”, “I will try” or “It may be difficult,” you’ve probably been given a negative response.
• If there is a long pause or other non-verbal cues such as avoiding the eyes or evasive responses, you’ve probably just been told no.
• Rather than accept assurances or agreements on face value, ask for specifics. It can be difficult to get definite answers to questions if the response would be negative. Therefore, watch for evasions or half statements.

There are times when bad news must be given. That’s not a problem to the direct communicator, but presents a real challenge to the indirect communicator. In many Asian countries, bad news is handled by a third-party so that both sides can retain face. Negative questions are another interesting quirk of indirect communication since the response may differ depending upon which language is used.

• In response to the question “Isn’t this document ready?”, the English response would be “no”, meaning the document is not ready, while the Japanese response would be “yes”, meaning “yes, the document is not ready.”
• Russians often ask negative questions such as “Did you not know?”, so that the person responding may give a positive response to indicate a negative answer.

If you are from a culture with a more direct communication style, you may need to train your ear and mind to catch indirectness before responding to questions, or else your response may confuse the listener.

How do you ensure you’re getting the correct answer?

• Ask open-ended questions and ask the same question several ways (re-phrase) to make certain you understood the response.
• Learn to phrase questions so that the desired response is not obvious. Instead of asking, “Will the report be finished by Friday?” you might ask, “When will the report be finished?”

For those of us who have been raised in direct cultures, it is important that we learn to understand the signals we receive from indirect communicators. Otherwise, we create our own baffling towers of Babel.

Carrie
RW3 CultureWizard

What would you add to this list of Brazilianisms? What would you say about regional differences in Brazil?

Read Sean Dubberke’s MOBILITY magazine article by clicking here.

All employees of global organizations are candidates for intercultural training, and the article highlights the methods and strategies experts use today to build the global business skills required to perform internationally.

RW3 CultureWizard

84% of Global Employees Not Prepared for Today’s Work Requirements
Study shows virtual work poses significant challenges to a majority of corporate employees

NEW YORK, NY – According to a study conducted by RW3 CultureWizard, an intercultural communication training organization, 87% of white collar employees of multinational companies conduct at least part of their work virtually. The study went on to find that while the vast majority of these employees encountered challenges in virtual work, only 16% had any training to prepare them.

The study had a stunning response rate: 3,300 business people from 103 countries. ”It is clear that the survey struck a nerve,” says Charlene Solomon, president of RW3. “In fact, the huge response itself is one of the key findings. There is a pent-up demand for expressing the difficulty of working virtually across time zones, languages and cultures.”

The 2012 Virtual Teams Survey Report – Challenges of Working in Virtual Teams found that in the virtual workplace decisions take longer and are harder to make, the absence of visual cues makes it more difficult to collaborate and building team trust is difficult. The survey also found that working across time zones rivaled communication and other culturally based challenges as the biggest hurdle facing corporate employees.

“It appears that while nearly everyone in today’s workplace recognizes the need—and appreciates the value—of virtual work, it is not easy, especially when cultural differences, time zone challenges, accents and communication styles enter the equation,” says Solomon.

The survey unearthed some surprises:
– 41% of virtual team members never met their colleagues in a face-to-face setting.
– 87% of respondents indicated at least 25% of their productivity depended upon working virtually.
– 33% said at least half of their virtual teams were outside the home country.
– Respondents reported virtual teams were most different from face-to-face teams in managing conflict (70%), expressing opinions (55%), and making decisions (55%).
– The top five challenges during team meetings were: insufficient time to build relationships (79%), speed of decision making (73%), lack of participation (71%), different leadership styles (69%), and the method of decision making (55%).

“The rapid pace of globalization and the growing number of collaborative software solutions have enabled virtual work, and the demand for skills from around the world have made it a necessity, but virtual team work is not intuitive,” says Michael Schell, RW3’s CEO. “It’s about time we recognize the human side of the equation.”

For more information or an interview on the 2012 Virtual Teams Survey Report, contact sean.dubberke@rw-3.com or dial +1-212-691-8900.

RW3 CultureWizard is an intercultural training consultancy that specializes in creating online solutions and e-learning facilities for its multinational organizations. Founded in 2001 and with offices in New York, Los Angeles, and London, RW3 blends over 30 years of experience in teaching global culture with cutting edge technologies. The company’s services include instructor led cross-cultural training, global and virtual team building and international assignee support.

Gonzalez starts by citing how the issue has been perceived in Mexico, with little surprise and little attention from the Mexican authorities, who took 50 hours to respond to the information revealed by the New York Times. This timing may be tied to a cultural norm where waiting for the right response – and securing the facts – is better than prematurely issuing a statement, erroneous or not. The Ministry of Economics has already said the matter has nothing to do with the federal government, which illustrates the divide between the federal system and the way foreign corporate bodies operate with local level authorities, vendors and business partners in Mexico.

The key point Gonzalez makes is that there’s a country-wide ethical standard upheld in the US, but when it comes to US-based companies operating in foreign countries, there’s a lack of structure to enforce compliance. The question he poses is: “¿Por qué Walmart hace cosas en México que no haría en Estados Unidos?” Why does Wal-Mart do things in Mexico it wouldn’t do in the US? This is especially poignant considering the existence of anti-corruption laws in Mexico, and the clout an organization as large as Wal-Mart should have to operate by the books no matter where they do business.

It’s important to note that bribery and venality are not directly linked to Mexican cultural values, but an anxious tolerance for corruption in the name of development, among other things. Afterall, Wal-Mart employs several hundred thousand people and generates a huge sum of tax revenue in Mexico. Hierarchy and rank are also extremely important to the business environment in Mexico (and many Latin American countries). The power vested in leaders to make decisions without consensus provides a convenient channel through which bribery can play a role to enable business dealings. How do you see hierarchy, the highly stratified nature of Mexican culture, playing a role in this story?

The Huffington Post quotes both Wal-Mart ad Eduardo Bohorquez, the director of Transparency Mexico, denying the connection between their cultures and bribery.

In a statement, Wal-Mart said the bribery accusations, ‘if they are true, do not reflect the culture of Wal-Mart Mexico and Central America.’

Bohorquez said bribery is not necessarily part of Mexico’s culture, noting laws against the practice exist on both sides of the border. The difference is real enforcement and the lack of a truly nationwide anticorruption policy in Mexico, he said.

‘This is not in the genetic code of Mexicans, nor is it a cultural attribute,’ he said. ‘The explanation of culture and genetics doesn’t apply in this case.’

What are your thoughts on the connection between culture, business and corruption? How do you view bribery in developing economies where gift-giving (although not at the level of this case) is a completely normal and expected part of the business process? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments section.

Sean
RW3 CultureWizard

A Google Street View car

The demarcation between public and private is generally made very clear in Germany and Austria. We discovered a blogger’s post, an expat in Germany, from 2010 that illustrates this demarcation (although all has been settled since).

Some prominent German government officials, most notably Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner, have denounced Google’s Street View. In a magazine interview, Aigner claimed that Google’s ‘comprehensive photo offensive is nothing less than a million-fold violation of the private sphere. I reject this form of exposure. There is not a secret service in existence that would collect photos so unabashedly.’

In Germany and Austria, the home is often considered a private sanctuary where only close friends and family are invited to visit. The expat in Germany who wrote the post linked to above said, “Germans really don’t like anyone peeping over their high fences and hedges. That’s why they are there.” Of course, this is a deeply rooted cultural value many Germans share (perhaps this is a value unique to certain generations). So, what did Germans do about this?

At the federal level, Aigner’s Consumer Protection Ministry now has a downloadable form online that German consumers can use to request that their house not be included in Street View – which could make Street View rather useless in Germany if Google complies with such demands. Google already allows people in Germany to request the removal of house address numbers.

More recently, this article on the TIME magazine website gives an update on the progress Google made in gaining acceptance of Street View in Germany. It seems the possibility to contest Street View, made possible by German authorities, quelled the anxiety it brought to privacy-conscious individuals.

Hamburg’s Johannes Caspar, the data protection head responsible for making it possible for Germans to oppose Google Street View, said he was happy with the service. ‘The Google camera car was, for many people, a symbol of a digital world trying to appropriate the analog world,’ said Caspar. Giving people the possibility of opposing the service, he explained, ‘diffused the situation and helped Street View gain acceptance.’

This is an interesting debate considering it has been a non-issue in the US where Street View was born. However, technological innovations are often cited in many public debates. Subsequent increase in adoption and usage indicates cultural change, where people form values around the utility of a device, whether it’s a cell phone or a new way of mapping the world. What technologies are at odds with your cultural values?

Josh
RW3 CultureWizard