A Framework for Understanding Cross-Cultural Misunderstandings

Successful communication between human beings, either within a culture or between cultures, requires that the message and meaning intended by the speaker is correctly received and interpreted by the listener. Sustainable error free communication is rare, and in most human interactions there is some degree of miscommunication.

The message sent from speaker to listener contains a wide array of features, such as words, grammar, syntax, idioms, tone of voice, emphasis, speed, emotion, and body language, and the interpretation requires the listener to attend to all of these features, while at the same time constructing an understanding of the speaker's intentions, emotions, politeness, seriousness, character, beliefs, priorities, motivations, and style of communicating. In addition, the listener must also evaluate whether the utterance is a question or a statement and how and to what extent a statement matters to the speaker (Maltz and Borker, 1982).

Each of the components of the communication provides one or more kind of information. Words convey abstract logic, tone of voice conveys attitudes, emotions and emphases, and body language communicates "requests versus commands, the stages of greeting, and turn-taking" (Schneller 1988, p. 154).

Even assuming that words and body language were perfectly understood, there is more information necessary to successfully communicate across cultures. For example, in some countries it is polite to refuse the first few offers of refreshment: "Many foreign guests have gone hungry because their U.S. host or hostess never presented a third offer" (Samovar and Porter 1988, p. 326). In understanding communication, a listener must pay attention not just to what is said and when, but also to how many times something is said, under what circumstances, and by whom. Given all this complexity, the reason human communication can often succeed is because people learn how to communicate and understand through interacting with one another throughout their lives. Therefore, it is no surprise that culture and socialization are critical determinants of communication and interpretation. "The entire inference process, from observation through categorization is a function of one's socialization" Detweiler (1975). Socialization influences how input will be received, and how perceptions will be organized conceptually and associated with memories.

Some theorists have gone so far as to claim that culture not only influences interpretation, but constitutes interpretation. The interpretation of communicative intent is not predictable on the basis of referential meaning alone. Matters of context, social presuppositions, knowledge of the world, and individual background all play an important role in interpretation (Gumperz, 1978b).

Even knowledgeable translators can have difficulty with cross-cultural translations. There may not be corresponding words or equivalent concepts in both cultures, jokes and implications may be overlooked, and literal translations can present a host of difficulties. Some language pairs are very difficult to translate, while others, usually in more similar languages, are much easier (Sechrest, Fay and Zaidi 1988).

While some of the incremental difficulties can be traced to the underlying linguistic commonalities between the languages, there may be a more elusive cultural and ecological basis for difficulty in translation. It would be interesting to test how much of the variance in communication could be accounted for by the ease with which the languages in question could be translated into one another.

Although it may facilitate cross-cultural translations, similarity of languages and cultures also increases the likelihood that communicators will erroneously assume similarity of meanings. This may make them more likely to misunderstand speech and behavior without being aware that they may have misinterpreted the speaker's message.

In general, cross-cultural miscommunication can be thought to derive from the mistaken belief that emics are etics, that words and deeds mean the same thing across cultures, and this miscalculation is perhaps more likely when cultures are similar in surface attributes but different in important underlying ways. In this case miscommunication may occur instead of non-communication.

(http://www.dattnerconsulting.com/cross.html )

  Today's meeting is really about you. I can stand in front of you and talk about working safely and what procedures to follow until I'm blue in the face. But until you understand the need for working safely, until you are willing to be responsible for your safety, it doesn't mean a whole lot.
   Some of you may be familiar with OSHA - the Occupational Safety & Health Administration. The sole purpose of this agency is to keep American workers safe. Complying with OSHA regulations isn't always easy, but if we work together, we can do it. Yet, complying with regulations is not the real reason for working safely. Our real motive is simple. We care about each and every one of you and will do what is necessary to prevent you from being injured.
   However, keeping our workplace safe takes input from everyone. Management, supervisor, and all of you have to come together on this issue, or we're in trouble. For example, upper management has to approve the purchase of safe equipment. Supervisors, including myself, have to ensure that each of you knows how to use that equipment safely. Then it's up to you to follow through the task and use the equipment as you were trained. If any one part of this chain fails, accidents are going to happen and people are going to get hurt.

Responsibility Number One - Recognize Hazards
   At the core of your safety responsibilities lies the task of recognizing safety and health hazards. In order to do that, you must first understand what constitutes a hazard. Extreme hazards are often obvious. Our hopes are that you won't find too many of those around here.
   There are, however, more subtle hazards that won't jump up and bite you. As a result of your safety training and meetings like these, some things may come to mind. For example, a machine may not be easy to lock out. Common practice may be to use a tag. This is a potential hazard and should be discussed. Maybe something can be changed to make it easier to use a lock. Other subtle hazards include such things as frayed electrical cords, a loose machine guard, a cluttered aisle, or maybe something that just doesn't look right.

Responsibility Number Two - Report Hazards
    A big part of recognizing hazards is using your instincts. Nobody knows your job as well as you do, so we're counting on you to let us know about possible problems. Beyond recognizing hazards, you have to correct them or report them to someone who can. This too, is a judgement call. For example, if something spills in your work area you can probably clean it up yourself. However, if there is an unlabeled chemical container and you have no idea what it is, you should report it to your supervisor.

Additional Employee Responsibilities
   Good housekeeping is a major part of keeping your work area safe. For example, you should take a few minutes each day to ensure that aisles, hallways, and stairways in your work area are not obstructed. If boxes, equipment, or anything else is left to pile up, you have a tripping hazard on your hands. Those obstructions could keep you from exiting the building quickly and safely should you face an emergency situation.
   Also watch out for spills. These can lead to slips and falls. Flammable materials are another thing to be aware of. Make sure they are disposed of properly.
   Keep Thinking. Even if you're doing your job safely and you are avoiding hazards, there are often even better ways to work safely. If you have ideas for improving the safety of your job or that of co-workers, share them.

   Concluding Remarks
  While nothing we do can completely eliminate the threat of an incident, we can work together to improve our odds. As I said, this must be a real team effort and I'm counting on input from all of you. Let's keep communicating and continue to improve safety.

  Available at: <http://www.ncsu.edu/ehs/www99/right/training/meeting/emplores.html>.Retrieved on: April 1st, 2012. Adapted.

Even though it makes lots of sense, implementing encryption in the enterprise has its drawbacks, ranging from performance degradation, a false sense of security to complexity and cost. These potential obstacles in turn, make many businesses balk. They find themselves faced with a serious and complex dilemma. If encryption is used, costs increase, performance suffers, and the network is saddled with numerous complexities, making it very difficult to manage. If encryption is not used, costs are lower; however, the network is extremely vulnerable.

One advantage to encryption is that it separates the security of data from the security of the device where the data resides or the medium through which data is transmitted. When data itself is encrypted, it allows administrators to use unsecured means to store and transport data, since security is encompassed in the encryption. Other key advantages to implementing encryption include the elimination of the pain that co- mes with data breach disclosures, the provision of strong protection for intellectual property, and the fulfillment of myriad regulatory compliance requirements. Nevertheless, just a cursory look at the intricacies behind encryption algorithms and keys is all that is needed to rapidly understand that this is about as close to rocket science.

Take encryption keys. One of the main drawbacks of encryption is the fact that management of encryption keys must be an added administrative task for often overburdened IT staff. In fact, the security of data becomes the security of the encryption key. “Lose that key, and you effectively lose your data”