Page 104 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Diversity and the Effects of Culture 87

comfortable during a recent trip to Europe when she attended Roman Catholic reli-
gious services in Italy and France. Despite the fact that she spoke no Italian or French,
she knew from the context exactly what to do and when. In low- context cultures, such
as those of Germany, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries, and the United States,
direct, clear, and unambiguous statements are valued. We expect people to state pre-
cisely what they mean so that there can be little room for doubt, no matter what the
situation (i.e., context) happens to be. The same verbal message given in different
contexts means about the same thing. For example, “No, I don’t agree with that idea”
means much the same thing whether you are in a meeting of co- workers, at the family
dinner table, or meeting with your church board. In contrast, high- context cultures
such as China, Japan, and South Korea prefer ambiguity, with several shades of mean-
ing possible, because this helps preserve harmony and allows people to save face. In
China, instead of a direct statement such as “No, I don’t agree with that idea,” you are
more likely to hear, “Perhaps we could explore that option.” You would have to be well
versed in Chinese communication patterns to know whether that statement means
“No, we don’t like it” or “We like it very much, but we must build consensus slowly”
or “We don’t know whether we like it until we explore it more fully.” Moreover, you
would also have to be astute at reading clues in the situation— for instance, is this in
reaction to the boss’s suggestion or to a younger co- worker’s? Complicated, isn’t it? To
Americans, with their low- context bias, it seems as though the Chinese are beating
around the bush. 30
Low- context cultures also tend to be individualistic, and high- context cultures
tend to be collectivist. Collectivist cultures operate by consensus of the group; indi-
31
viduals try not to risk offending another member of the group because this might
upset a delicate balance of harmony. Ambiguity allows individuals to express opinions
tentatively rather than directly without the risk of affronting others and upsetting the
balance. Because low- context cultures such as the United States display cultural diver-
sity in which little can be taken for granted, verbal skills are probably more necessary,
32
and thus more valued. But in a high- context culture such as Japan, the high degree
of cultural homogeneity means that more can be taken for granted (and thus remain
unspoken) during the communication process. In fact, most Japanese value silence
more than we do and are suspicious of displays of verbal skills. 33
Imagine how difficult group communication can be when members from a high-
context culture try to interact with members from a low- context culture. One of us
observed a student group that included Qing- yu, who was from Taiwan. The American
students were used to lively debate and accustomed to speaking out in favor of or in
opposition to one another’s ideas, but in Qing- yu’s culture, disagreement is indicated
very subtly. Qing- yu’s quiet, subdued behavior in the group irritated the American
students, who kept trying to get her to behave more like them. The harder the Ameri-
cans tried to force her to take a stand, get to the point, and be direct, the more she
retreated into her familiar orientation of ambiguity and indirectness. The misunder-
standing was severe.
The five dimensions we have just discussed guide what is considered appropriate
verbal and nonverbal communicative behavior in a particular culture. In Chapter 2 we
talked about several effects of cultural differences on nonverbal communication.

gal37018_ch04_075_108.indd 87 3/28/18 12:35 PM