Intercultural Communication

In the globalised world which we are living in today, interactions with individuals from different nationalities and ethnicities have become commonplace. As a result, the display of etiquettes in the context of intercultural communication is called for. In this week’s blog, I would like to share my experience of communicating with my Japanese counterparts.

“There’s no communication to speak of at all!” These were exactly the words which were used by a Singaporean friend, who recounted her experience of playing host to 2 Japanese students. This statement was made by her as she was trying to express her frustrations over what she felt was the lack of candidness on the part of the Japanese students while providing feedback on how they felt. The account is not an isolated one. In fact, the ambiguity and indirect approach adopted by the Japanese while rejecting others or providing feedback has been well known to many who have interacted with them. Even among the Japanese themselves, many of them are well-aware of such a practice amongst their contemporaries.

For the Japanese who have been brought up under such a practice, this does not come as a surprise. However, problems arise when an individual of a different culture interacts with the Japanese. For individuals unfamiliar with the Japanese cultural norms, like my friend, they find it difficult to understand why the Japanese are reluctant to express their ideas clearly, especially when it comes to stating views that differ from others. However, things would be different if the different parties of diverse cultural backgrounds involved in the conversation, understood the cultural norms and values of the other.

In the context of the Japanese, they feel that it is only polite to take the ambiguous and indirect approach while rejecting others or providing feedback, as they believe that by doing so, they would save the other party from embarrassment or the lost of face. However, for most English speaking cultures like the Singaporean’s, it is considered acceptable for the individual to take on an assertive approach while raising opposing viewpoints or rejecting others. In light of such a difference in cultural norms, it is not difficult to understand why misunderstandings and frustrations ensue between the Japanese and Singaporean when they encounter situations where their ideas differ.

In fact, if one were to analyse the situation closer, they will realize that this disparity is reflected within the language structure that either party uses. In the case of the Japanese, it is common to hear phrases such “sumimasen ga chotto”, which has the nuance of “excuse me, please hold on”, while rejection of offers are being made. In this case, there is no explicit statement of objection but the native Japanese as well as those familiar with their culture would be quick to understand that the statement is clearly expressing one of rejection. However, for a foreigner this may be misinterpreted as a possible yes but the other party needs some time to confirm. While in the case of the English speaking Singaporean, when one is making a statement of rejection in English, it is common to hear phrases such as “I am sorry but I do not think…” In this case, the intention of the speaker is clearly conveyed to the listener.

In light of the above scenario as depicted, it should be highlighted that while effective communication has been commonly associated with following the acceptable verbal and non-verbal communication norms, one should also realize that “appropriateness” is measured differently in different cultures. Thus, due to the differences that exist between cultures, it is pertinent that one should learn to understand the practices of the other so that differences are minimized.

---

Let's discuss about Business Correspondence Letters

In this week’s blog, I will share my thoughts on a business letter I had received some time ago. This letter was written with the intention to persuade cardmembers to join a priority taxi booking service. The content of this letter is provided below.

3 January 2009

XYZ
12 ABC Avenue 3
Singapore 567890

Dear Valued Cardmember,

Relax. Now you’ll be the first to get a cab whenever you need one

From now on, you can be the first to get a taxi when you need one, with the priority taxi booking hotline reserved exclusively for QRS Credit Cardmembers. What’s more, you will enjoy a waiver of the usual 10% surcharge and GST for credit card payments. The waived amount will be credited back into your Credit Card account and reflected in your following months’ statement.

Only registered QRS Credit Cardmembers have access to the hotline, so you will find your calls are connected much faster. What’s more, the hotline helps you book with the biggest taxi fleet in Singapore – comprising 15,000 Comfort, City Cab and Yellow-Top Cab taxis. The dedicated hotline operator will manage your call and help you get a cab fast.

The credit card surcharge and GST waiver, as well as the priority booking hotline promotion are valid from 4 January until 4 July 2009. To register for the hotline, simply provide us with your address and choose two telephone numbers to have access. Please allow 5-8 days for your application to be processed, before calling the taxi on the hotline 6553 8888.

Why wait any longer? Register your details today and leave the taxi queue behind.

Yours sincerely,


EFG
Head, Consumer Finance
QRS Bank

I feel that the overall letter, as shown above, had been well constructed, as it was clear in conveying its intention of persuading clients to sign up for the priority taxi booking service. In addition, some strategies employed within the letter helped in making it an effective one. These strategies are described as follows.

Firstly, the effective use of the caption “Relax. Now you’ll be the first to get a cab whenever you need one” at the start of the letter, helped to captivate the readers’ attention. Thus, it could lead them into reading the letter further. Moreover, it succinctly conveyed the privilege that cardmembers can enjoy if they signed up for the service.

Secondly, the potential benefits have been clearly outlined within the letter. Furthermore, there was concreteness in presenting the benefits as demonstrated by the employment of vivid explanations which helped to elaborate how the benefits arise. For instance, to emphasize that cardmembers can enjoy faster taxi booking service, the letter attributed it to the exclusivity of the taxi booking hotline and staffs’ commitment to providing quality service.

Thirdly, the letter addressed the anticipated queries of the readers, as it provided the readers with the relevant details as to how and when they could register for the promotion mentioned, as well as, the telephone hotline number to dial to enjoy the priority taxi booking service. Besides these, contact details were written to inform readers the channel they could approach if they had any queries.

Fourthly, the inclusion of a last reminder of the benefits as a concluding statement helped to reiterate the objective of the letter and provided a persuasive yet non-aggressive means to appeal for readers’ action.

Fifthly, the appropriate use of diction had effectively conveyed courtesy, coherence and conciseness. Courtesy was demonstrated by the choice of words such as “valued cardmember” and the use of gender neutral pronoun “you” throughout the length of the letter. While coherence was illustrated by the use of connectors such as “what’s more”, that helped to introduce the multiple benefits in a sequential manner.

Sixthly, the cohesiveness in structure was shown by the methodical approach employed in putting forward the ideas. Starting from the outline of the benefits, to the explanation of how the benefits arise, to ultimate provision of program registration details, a systematic progression in ideas could be seen. As a result of the cohesive organization of ideas, clarity was conveyed.

However, there is still a need for improvement within the letter. For instance there was incompleteness in informing how the application for the priority taxi booking service could be performed. This is because there was no mention that the application details had to be written within the enclosed form and returned via mail through the enclosed self addressed envelope. Moreover, with regards to correctness, there was a minor error in the language used. Instead of the use of “following months’ statement”, it should have been “following month’s statement”.

In spite of the minor mistakes made, I feel that the letter remained largely successful in portraying itself as a good persuasive business correspondence letter.

Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal conflict can take the form of a disagreement between or among connected individuals such as friends, family members, colleagues or lovers. In any interpersonal relationship we are engaged in, conflicts are usually inevitable. Most researchers in interpersonal communication would teach us that conflicts are not always detrimental but rather, it is the way we manage conflicts which will dictate the outcomes on our relationships. Joseph Joubert, a French moralist, once said “The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress”. His words echo the philosophy of most interpersonal communication researchers that adopting the win-win approach is the ideal to conflict resolution. These words of wisdom may be something you may wish to ponder over whilst attempting to suggest possible solutions to the following hypothetical account.

X and Y came to know each other in school. They became friends readily as they went to the same school, studied the same subjects and went to the same class. During their school days, they forged a close-knitted friendship as they met up for sports activities, birthday celebrations, meals and girls’ talk. Both X and Y did not continue their university education after college. As they ventured into the adult world, their paths began to diverge. Eventually, a bitter conflict ensued between them.

Soon after graduating from college, X was lucky to be accepted as an employee in a banking firm in the country’s capital. Gladly, she readily accepted the job offer as she aspires to be a successful career woman. On the other hand, Y, who is talented in art, dreams of becoming a fashion designer hence she hoped to find herself a job as an apprentice in one of the fashion boutiques. Unfortunately, despite searching diligently for a job, Y’s efforts were to no avail. Feeling down and in need of company, Y tried to phone her friend X on several occasions to pour her sorrows. However, X, who was bogged down by work and tired after a hectic day, did not feel ready to offer Y her attention hence, she would usually hang up the call after a few words citing reasons such as exhaustion. This caused Y to feel lonely and dejected. At the same time she felt displeased that her best friend could not lend her a listening ear. Despite that, Y tried hard to hold back her complaints. The last straw came when the former classmates of X and Y initiated a get together session. Like usual, Y informed X of the class gathering. While informing X, X insisted that she was busy and would only meet up Y and their classmates if they came over to the capital where she was working. As Y could no longer bear with what was perceived as a self-centred behaviour on X’s part, she rebuked her and said “Y, you have become so selfish ever since you worked in the capital! All you ever care about is yourself! You have forgotten your friends and now you have left me so disappointed in you!”. X was annoyed by Y’s comments and felt that Y failed to empathize with her. X felt that she had been working so hard and it was only right that her precious free time should be kept to herself. She felt that agreeing to meet up with her classmates was already a sacrifice on her part. Thus, X rebutted saying “Fine, so be it! Since I am no friend of yours, you shall not see me in the coming class meeting!”. Both abruptly ended their conversation by slamming their phones.

In light of the above conflict scenario, do you think both X and Y failed to empathize with each other’s situation? If so, how do you think X and Y could have confronted the matter in a better way?