You are the second in command of a large petroleum refinery Control
Room. You notice on your screen serious leakage of gas in one of the units. An
emergency is imminent. How would you communicate to your superior who is in
command of the control room about what needs to be done?
The answer to the question is, “it depends on where you come from”.
Let us see why.
High-context as against low-context cultures
The way we communicate is influenced by our cultures to a much greater
extent than we believe. The anthropologist, Edward T.Hall, in his 1976 book, Beyond
Culture, referred to this phenomenon as high-context as against low-context
cultures. According to him in high-context cultures many things are left
unsaid, letting the context explain. Words and word choice become very
important in high-context communication, since a few words can communicate a
complex message very effectively to an in-group, that is, a group in which
members are from the same culture. Words and phrases may mean many things, but
the listener derives the meaning by its context. Therefore, a message of a
high-context culture will communicate less effectively to those outside the
cultural group. A humor, for example, may mean different things in high and
low-context cultures; it may not be humorous at all in the other group! On the
other hand, in a low-context culture, the communicator needs to be much more
explicit and the value of a single word is less important. Communication is
precise there.
Some of the high-context cultures are: Arab, Chinese, French, Indian,
Japanese, Korean, Latin American, Russian, Southern U.S., Turkish etc.
Some of the low-context cultures are: Australian, Dutch, German, Scandinavian, Switzerland, United
States (excluding the Southern US) etc.
Mitigated speech
Mitigated speech is the term recently popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in
his book The Outliers (Chapter: Ethnic Theory of Plane
Crashes). It refers to any attempt to downplay or surrogate (or dilute) the
meaning of what is being said when one is being polite, deferential to
authority, or when one is ashamed or embarrassed. Mitigated speech also has the
cultural dimension to it. In certain cultures where superiors are expected to
be shown deference mitigation of speech is high.
Communication gap
Let us see how these phenomena affect our communication. Going back to
the question we asked in the beginning, there are various possibilities of
answers:
a.
“There is a leak in Unit X, we have an emergency. Shut down the unit”. –
This is a low-context message, unmitigated speech. The second-in-command talks
to his superior as he would to an equal..
b.
“There is a gas leak in unit X. Looks like an emergency. What do we do?”
– Deferential to authority. Shifts responsibility to superior. High-context.
Means the superior should order shutting down the unit.
c.
“There is a gas leak in Unit X. May be an emergency”.– Imminent
emergency is downplayed. Decision on action is not even suggested. Looking for
orders from superiors. High-context and highly mitigated.
d.
“There is a gas leak in Unit X.” – Only passes factual information.
Neither mention of emergency nor of action. Too contextual and deferential.
In cultures where hierarchical levels are “respected”, there is higher
tendency to throw the responsibility to higher levels – a sort of reverse
delegation. There is lower assumption of responsibility. The vice versa also is
true.
Malcolm Gladwell refers to three more dimensions of high and low-context
communication and the extent of mitigation.
a. Individualism – collectivism: How much an individual is expected to look
after himself? Individualism is high in low-context cultures. Where hierarchy
is revered there would be less individualism and consequent owning of
responsibility to one’s decisions and its consequences will be low. Where
individualism is high, ownership of responsibility is high. Communication is
clearer.
b. Uncertainty avoidance: High-context cultures tolerate ambiguity to a
much higher degree. These are cultures more reliant on rules, procedures and
plans.
c. Power distance Index: Attitude towards hierarchy, specifically, how much
a particular culture values and respects authority. Mitigation is high in
cultures where the index is high, particularly in communication by subordinate
to superiors.
When people from other cultures are not clear about what you say or if
they are surprised at what you said, beware of the high or low-context cultures
from where they come. The cost of communication gap may prove to be too dear in
our business dealings. Gladwell was not exaggerating the consequences of
communication gap arising out of these cultural factors when he gave the
examples of three air crashes:
- Korean Air Flt 801 crashes near Guam airport on August 5,
1997 presumably because the communication between the First Officer and the
Captain was affected by mitigated speech.
- Columbian Aviana 052. The flight was approaching Kennedy at New
York, when it crashed. Here again the cause leading to the crash was mitigated
communication between an ‘overbearing’ air traffic controller and a deferential
first officer; and between the deferential first officer and the captain.
- The 1982 air Florida crash, outside Washington DC.
The first officer told the captain three times in mitigated communication that
the plane had dangerous icicles on the wings. By the time he moved from
mitigated speech to unmitigated speech it was too late.
By V.K.Talithaya (vktalithaya@managementmasala.com)
0 comments:
Post a Comment