Negotiating across cultures can be difficult when cultural norms, including linguistics, are not fully understood. Words and phrases that we use can be misinterpreted when meanings are either ambiguous or not taken literally. My employer was faced with a situation recently that caused an issue, but could have been avoided with clarification. Our purchasing manager contacted a German company who could potentially supply us with raw material. Since they are in a different time zone, he emailed them asking for an appointment on a certain day and time. The German sales representative emailed him back and said that the date and time was not preferable and left it at that. Our purchasing manager did not follow-up and waited on them to email again with another date. The German salesperson did not email back and unexpectedly showed up at our facility on the date that was “not preferable”, much to everyone’s surprise. Since the meeting was not firmed, the department heads who needed to be involved had scheduled other meetings, so it was a disaster. Looking back on the situation, there was a definite communication error that could have been avoided.
According to Moran, Abramson & Moran, people tend to assume they understand what the other person is thinking, thus the meaning behind their words (2014). In this case, the purchasing manager misinterpreted the German salesperson’s email as meaning they wanted to reschedule the meeting, rather than what they really meant: it wasn’t their first choice, but they’ll come anyway. Takumi Ihara pointed out that not only does this sort of communication breakdown exist in electronic correspondence, but also in verbal (1992). Ihara used instances where terms being translated between English and Japanese were not literal and at times the cultural norms also had a bearing on the meaning of the word (1992). In German, the word for “preferable” is vorziehen, which means to prefer or favor, but when translated to English, the meaning changes to “move forward” (Collins German-English Dictionary, 2018).
The word choice of the German salesperson was fine, but he failed to understand what the word meant in English. Likewise, the purchasing manager failed to double-check with the salesperson to clear any noise. Looking back, the salesperson was a high-context communicator because his email was vague and did not contain any information that would lead us to his meaning (Moran et al, 2014). In his mind, he was letting us know the appointment did not work for him, but he would plan to be there anyway. That is definitely not the way it was received and since it was such a shock when he showed up at our facility, it proved to be a learning moment for everyone involved.
Situations like these are very uncomfortable and when they arise, it gives the involved parties an opportunity to learn and grow. In the global business environment, we have many opportunities to communicate electronically, which poses a larger problem because we cannot see the person reading the message. It falls to the organization to push cultural training programs for anyone working directly with people from other countries, especially where English is not a primary language. Understanding others and their potential perceptions of our actions and words is one of the most important aspects in dealing with people globally.
References:
Collins German-English Dictionary. (2018). English translation of ‘vorziehen’. Collins Dictionary.com. Retrieved from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/german-english/vorziehen
Ihara, T. (1992). Coping with cross-cultural communication problems in English. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 3, p.129-137. Retrieved from https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/arele/3/0/3_KJ00007108154/_article
Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R. & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing Cultural Differences (9th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
kmd6295 says
This is a great example, of why global leaders and their workforce must have the basic understanding of the countries in which they do business. They must operate with a general knowledge of the culture to have effective communication that is mutually understood by both the receiver and the sender. Even more so, communication can be extremely difficult when assumptions or behaviors are misinterpreted by either side because they are culturally based (Moran, Abramson & Moran, p. 35, 2014). The fact that the sender of the email you referenced interpreted the response as not preferable but didn’t mean that they couldn’t do it. And the receiver was looking for the sender to provide additional dates – further proves that a simple misunderstanding can lead to communication breakdown that ultimately created a roadblock. Now luckily in this case, they were able to get things back on track but I am sure there were slight annoyances by each. But if you think about this on a larger global scale, you can see that something so small could have a significant impact on business. And it is imperative that each group (sender and receiver) have a basic understanding of each other.
Resources:
Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing Cultural Differences. (9th ed). Oxon: Routledge
jzd5496 says
Hi Kimberly,
What an interesting story about cross-cultural understanding. I see errors in communication at both ends. Both German culture and American culture are closely related and are low-context germanic languages – so there may be something to understand from two highly individualistic communicators. It appears that once the communication was sent and received since there was no follow-up communication, both parties had subconsciously communicated an act of moving forward. However, while the Americans assumed they were waiting for more information and being passive, the German assumed they were moving forward with the meeting and showed up as directed without confirming. Both parties could have improved their communication by providing more context. The German party could have confirmed their appointment anytime in between the original communication and the meeting. Likewise, the American company should have followed up in some manner after receiving communication that appeared to them to leave them waiting. This is a very good lesson in being especially clear when setting meeting times. It never hurts to have more context in these situations.
Respectfully,
Jordan