Cultrual differences in Tech Comm

It’s no secret that globalization is growing. As companies expand into many countries, there is a growing diversity among the people who work for these companies. With this diversity comes the inevitability of cultural clash. Cultures can differ on how they conduct collaboration projects, what values are held, and how communication is conducted. Deborah Bosley knows this and addresses how these culture clashes can be understood and overcome in her article “Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Whose Culture is it Anyway?”. Early on, Bosley defines culture as “an established set of values and a way of thinking and behaving that is passed from generation to generation” (468). She clearly makes the statement that multicultural communication has to begin “with the position that differences exist” between various cultures (467). If this is not accepted, then true communication cannot exist. Bosley gives four cultural characteristics that influence group behavior, the first being group or individual emphasis. Although Western cultures emphasize the individual more than the group, that is not the case in many non-Western cultures. These cultures value the group collective over the individual. Tying in to the first characteristic is the second characteristic: achievement and responsibility. In Western cultures, the individual is praised for their personal achievements and how they distinguish themselves from the group; not so in other cultures. In these cultures, achievement is defined “in terms of how many contributions they make to the group” (469). Group decision is the third characteristic that Bosley talks about. More specifically, how different cultural groups come to decisions. Western cultures believe that differing viewpoints can lead to a better decision making process, but this is not so with other cultures. In Japan for example, preserving the group harmony is valued over the final decision, so it is common for group members to agree with others despite any thoughts they may have to the contrary. The final differing characteristic is in thinking and communication skills. Western cultures usually spell out the problems in their writing, while non-Western cultures rely more on social and emotive responses. Asian culture for example “use context to convey much of the information. . . More of the message is left unspoken and is accessed through non-verbal cues and interpretations” to decide what is being said (471). Although this would be frustrating to a Westerner, it is common in another’s culture. Bosley finishes her article by giving ideas on how these cultural differences can be understood and overcome. The biggest being actual participation in cross-cultural groups. Participating in such groups can help group members “exchange information about the communication styles of their culture,” which can lead to a better understanding of their behavior and of cross-cultural communication (472).

As I read this article, I thought of the International Tech Comm class I took a few semesters back with Dr. Mackenzie. Many of the ideas we talked about there are similar to what Bosley points out in her article. Western cultures tend to be more individually centered than others that focus more on the “group think” idea. As the field of technical communication globally expands, it becomes more important for us to realize the different values between cultures and acknowledge them. Bosley makes the important observation that the only way we can truly recognize these differences is by openly discussing them in a cross-cultural group. We can read about the differences and study them, but it’s important to have that first-hand knowledge. If I were to take a technical writing position in another country, I would not want to go in without an understanding of the differences that may exist. Without that understanding, I would most likely make some sort of mistake or faux paus that would not be ideal. Essentially, it all comes down to proper communication, that’s what our field is based so I think it only makes sense that we practice what we preach.