1
Article Intercultural communication styles: A case study of the United States, Germany and Thailand Rachawit Photiyarach Abstract Many Americans, Thais and Germans are currently working together in international schools or multinational companies in Thailand, and cross-cultural misunderstandings/intergroup conflict are inevitable. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate cultural differences between Americans, Germans and Thais so that these three cultural groups can develop the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately with each other. Introduction Comparing different cultures is one of the most challenging issues facing anyone who lives in a multicultural environment. There is no doubt that if we have profound knowledge of one’s own and other cultures, we tend to be more culturally competent and communicate with people from different backgrounds effectively. However, the problem is it is impossible to know every single culture since there is a countless number of cultures existing in this world. This is why cultural frameworks play a significant role in helping people identify cultural differences between and within groups. Various cultural frameworks created by many crosscultural and intercultural scholars such as Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory and Erin Meyer’s the culture map can provide us knowledge of different cultures and how to communicate with them appropriately and effectively. These frameworks should also be based on academic and scientific research so that we will not discriminate cultures based on stereotypes. Cultural generalizations (not stereotypes) are an important tool to understand other cultures. The cultural frameworks can help people identify the differences within and between their culture and other cultures. 1
Many Western expats are currently working and living in Thailand. Of course, the problems of different cultures and languages between Thai and Westerners are still prevalent. Hence, to study how people from different cultural backgrounds interact in 1
According to the Office of Foreign Workers Administration, there were around 25,000 registered expats from English speaking nations who resided in Thailand in 2014 (Office of Foreign Workers Administration 2015).
2
Thailand is paramount. This study will be valuable for Thais, Germans and Americans who are working in an intercultural environment to be able to communicate productively with each other. Various studies have been conducted on intercultural communication and intercultural relations between Thais and expats in several aspects. Cooper (2008) wrote the book, “Culture Shock! Thailand: A Survival Guide to Customs and Etiquette” to help expats adjust to Thai culture successfully. The work by Henry Holmes and Suchada Tangtongtavy, “Working With the Thais: A Guide to Managing in Thailand” illustrates how Thai people thought and worked. It certainly demonstrates some of the serious issues Western expats faced at work (Holmes and Suchada, 1997). However, there is no research that particularly focuses on cultural differences between Americans, Germans and Thais. Thus, I have created my own cultural frameworks based on various interculturalists in order to make a comparison between American, German and Thai cultures. How we see our own culture and other cultures: Generalizations instead of cultural stereotypes The ways human beings see themselves and other are usually organized by how they interact with people who belong to their own group and those outside their groups. Many of them prefer to avoid talking about cultural differences and adhere to the idea of individualism that is rooted in Western cultures. This also means they deny the differences among groups based on culture, ethnicity and race and see everyone as an individual. They prefer to treat everyone the same without acknowledging cultural differences. The point they miss is that no one can escape culture. As members of society, people are subjected to culture (Hofstede 2010, 3-26; Tyler 1920, 1). The idea of culture itself is always a collective phenomenon because it is at least partly shared with those who live or lived within the same social environment where it was learned. People are programmed like software to learn since they were young to act the way that is appropriate in their own society. Culture consists of the unwritten rules of the social game. Culture is not like personality which is unique and individual (Hofstede 2010, 326; Tyler 1920, 1). Personality does not need to be shared with other people. These are key differences between culture and personality. You are a unique a person who is not similar to anyone. That is your personality. But in order to live in the society, your culture determines who you are. Culture is a learning process which influents how we act and behave towards one another (Hofstede 2010, 3-26). However, we also should not assume that everyone who belongs to a certain group will be the same. If you do not recognize differences among individuals from the same population, you can adhere to stereotypes about groups of people.
3
This is for reason that we need to clearly distinguish stereotypes and generalizations. Bennett (2013) states that A cultural generalization is a statement about a group of people. For instance, saying that US Americans tend to be more individualistic compared to many other cultural groups is an accurate generalization about that group. A cultural generalization may become a stereotype if it is definitively applied to individual members of the group. For instance, it would be stereotyping a particular person to assume that he or she must be individualistic by virtue of being a US American. As it is used in the context of intercultural communication, a cultural stereotype is a rigid description of a group (all people of Group X are like this) or, alternatively stated, it is the rigid application of a generalization to every person in the group (you are a member of X, therefore you must fit the general qualities of X). Stereotypes can be avoided to some extent by using cultural generalizations as only tentative hypotheses about how an individual member of a group might behave. From the description above, it can be understood that stereotypes tend to lock people into categories without leaving a room for individual differences. This is dissimilar to generalizations which are used as only a tentative assumption about individuals who belong to a group. For instance, “all Thais are like this or you're Thai, then you must fit the general qualities of Thai people).” This example is a stereotype about Thai people. As for generalizations, we can say, for example, collectivism is an important element in Thai culture. Therefore, many Thais (not all) identify themselves more strongly with their own group than people from individualistic cultures such as Americans and Germans. This is an accurate generalization. To deny that variation and to assume that every individual is a static representative of a single group is the essence of stereotyping. Stereotypes are one of the barriers to intercultural communication (Barna 1994, 337-346). In contrast, we cannot avoid making a generalization about a group of people because it is a natural part of human perception. We always need to classify things into groups, such as cars, animals, books and so on. It is possible that we make accurate generalizations about prevalent qualities of a group without stereotyping individuals in the group. Accurate generalizations are based on the measurement of a chosen set of cultural criteria (Bennett 2013, 11-18). The last point is that we should apply intersectionality to how we identify different cultures. Cultural variations can be put into categories, including region, age, gender, class, race/ethnicity and so on. Individuals from the same nation can possess a multilayered identity. Each person has their own unique ways of thinking depending on their regional, racial, ethnic, religious, gender and class affiliations (Anthias 2013, 323-343). This
4
is for the reason that making cultural generalizations is more useful than making stereotypes. A cultural generation is a general assumption about a group of people, but it does not ignore the importance of individual variations (personality). An American female expat who lives in Thailand may be different from the American working class who never live or work abroad. Her own experience as a foreigner can alter the way she sees herself. She may belong simultaneously to many different affiliations or move in and out between various cultural worldviews. This article only aims to compare national cultures of the United States, Germany and Thailand (Generalizations) rather than hold on to the idea that every American is the same, every Thai is the same and every German is the same. Putting theory into practice Diverse cultural frameworks are created by many cross-cultural and intercultural scholars, such as “Edward Hall’s high-context and low-context cultures”, “Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory” and “Trompenaars' model of national culture differences.” These dimensions should be based on academic and scientific research so that we will not discriminate cultures stereotypically. Like I said, cultural generalizations are necessary to understand other cultures. Edward Hall introduced the theory of high-context and low-context cultures in his book, “Beyond Culture” (Hall 1976). “Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory” is an important tool to analyze how your culture differs from other cultures. His cultural dimensions include low power distance vs. high power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, high uncertainty avoidance vs. low uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs. femininity, long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation and indulgence vs. restraint (Hofstede 2010). Tromprnaars (1997) also classifies cultural differences based on seven dimensions,
including
Universalism
vs.
particularism,
Individualism
versus
communitarianism, specific versus diffuse, neutral versus emotional, achievement vs. ascription, sequential vs. synchronic and internal vs. external control. Meyer has further developed a productive cultural framework that provides the eight dimensions for evaluating different cultures. These eight dimensions include 1.Communicating: explicit vs. implicit, 2.Evaluating: direct negative feedback vs. indirect negative feedback, 3.Persuading: deductive vs. inductive, 4.Leading: egalitarian vs. hierarchical, 5.Deciding: consensual vs. top down, 6.Trusting: task vs. relationship, 7.Disagreeing: confrontational vs. avoid confrontation and 8.Scheduling: structured vs. flexible (Meyer 2014). These proposed cultural frameworks can help people identify differences within and between cultural groups.
5
The next part of this article will cultural differences between the United States, Germany and Thailand based various cultural frameworks illustrated above. Communication styles Communication styles can be categorized as high or low context cultures. While communication or messages are implicit in high context cultures, communication and messages are explicit in a low context cultures (Hall 1976, 91). Americans and Germans are more explicit than Thais when it comes to expressing their wants, needs and desires. We can easily discover that our American and German friends prefer to use a lot of explicit messages to let someone know about his/her needs (Althen 2003, 27-31; Hall 1976, 91; Lewis 2006, 225; Meyer 2014, 29-60). For example, when an American woman needs to inform her boss that she cannot go to work on the weekend, she will directly say it to her boss that she cannot come without any non-verbal messages to make the communication vague. This is dissimilar to Thais who tend to be implicit when communicating with each other. If they are asked the same question, they may respond to the boss like this, “I may pick up my cousin from the airport this weekend, so let's me consider it." In this case, it means they cannot come, but they will not say “no” directly to make themselves sound rude. This is the main reason that you need to pay attention to what Thais say because many things are left unsaid. Even though Germans are stereotyped as one of the most direct speakers, they are more implicit than the American counterparts when they express themselves (Meyer 2014, 29-60). Meyer (2014) indicates that American culture is the lowest context in the world. This is due to the fact that the United States is a new country consisting of immigrants from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. When they communicate with each other, they need to be as clear as possible to avoid any misunderstandings. In contrast to explicit communication in many Western countries, Thais are so indirect when they articulate themselves. They tend to use a lot of downgrade words, such as probably, maybe, and might be. “Kreng jai” and “Mai pen rai” play a significant role in the Thai interaction. “Kreng jai” is a belief for an individual to retain his/her feelings, needs and wants, in circumstances where there are any potential chances of causing someone to lose face or breaking group harmony (Holmes and Suchada 2003, 46). “Mai pen rai” is one of the most popular phrases widely used in Thai society. It is frequently translated in Thai as never mind. However, there are various interpretations of how "mai pen rai" is employed by Thai people, especially when they are hesitant to trouble
6
others. There are five meanings of “mai pen rai”, including “No, thank you (but actually yes please)”, “Anything is fine”, “Don’t worry about it”, “You’re welcome” and No, thank you” (Nanticha 2016). Thailand is more racially homogeneous than Germany and the United States. It is possible that they are familiar with implicit communication among group members. When we communicate with Americans or Germans, it is easy to understand what someone means because they mean what they say. Speaking and written words are more important than non-verbal communication in these two Western cultures. However, when we communicate with Thais, it is harder to understand the messages they sent to us without reading between the lines. Although I am Thai, I still do not get when some Thais are sulking. Oftentimes, I find Thais to be evasive because they do not come out and speak their mind. Conflict management styles The ways people handle conflict vary from culture to culture. Americans may be very explicit communicators, but they are indirect it comes to expressing disagreement. In contrast to Americans, Germans are unemotionally expressive and confrontational. In Germany, people can separate personal attack from how someone disagreeing with their idea. It is quite usual for them to attack someone's opinion without attacking that person (Hammer 2009, 226; Lewis 2006, 223; Meyer 2014, 195-218). This is a big cultural difference between Americans and Germans. Americans avoid criticizing someone and put a strong value on living together in harmony (Althen 2003, 38-40; Meyer 2014, 195-218). This is because the United Stated is a multiracial/multiethnic nation. Thus, different social groups need to learn how to coexist and be united. “United we stand, divided we fall” is an integral part of American culture (Meyer 2014, 195-218). Political correctness has also played a paramount role in preventing Americans from offending each other. Thai people are both non-confrontational and unemotionally 2
expressive. The concept of "saving other faces ” is more highly valued in Thai culture than both American and German cultures. Conflict avoidance is the way Thais handle conflict in order to avoid losing face which can potentially break group harmony and negatively affect their relationships. "Prong dong" (ปรองดอง) which literally means being in harmony demonstrates the way Thais place greater emphasis on harmonious and peaceful relationships. In a collectivistic culture like Thailand, it is important that everyone tries not to 2
The concept of face will be explained in more detail in the “Mutual-faces/other- faces vs. self-face part.”
7
make others feel anxious and worried about any confrontation so that positive relationships between group members can continue smoothly. Thais usually use "mai pen rai" to avoid any feelings of conflict. For example, when someone makes a mistake by dropping a pint of icecream into a typical Thai person’s shoes, they will immediately say “mai pen rai” (do not worry about it) in order to calm the situation down (Holmes and Suchada 2003, 22). Not all Western cultures are the same. There is no single Western culture. Compared to Thailand, Americans are perceived as direct speakers, but they are less confrontational than many Northern Europeans. Germans, for example, usually consider negative feedback to be positive as long as it is constructively used to challenge someone's ideas instead of attacking that person's characters (Meyer 2014, 61-88; Hammer 2009, 226). While criticism is valued in Germany as long as it is rational and constructive, Americans prefer not to give direct critical feedback to other people. In the United States, it is paramount that you give someone a compliment before moving to the negative one (Althen 2003, 38-40; Meyer 2014, 61-88; Hammer 2009, 226). In Thailand, giving negative feedback is even more limited and you can only do it if you are a boss or hold a higher status. This is because Thailand is a hierarchical country where the seniority system is considered as a social value accepted by the majority of Thai people who see it as a good thing (Holmes and Suchada 2003, 26-28). Expressive styles It is also paramount to know the ways expressions operate in different cultures. There is no doubt that some cultures are more emotionally expressive or unexpressive than others. Meyer (2014) and Trompernaars (1997) both argue that Northern European peoples, such as Swedish and Dutch are generally considered to be reserved in their expression of emotions. In some Roman-speaking countries, such as Spain, Portugal and Brazil, people are more emotionally expressive than the Northern European counterparts. Even though expressing emotion in Germany is unacceptable, open disagreement is usually welcomed as long as it is based on rational and constructive approaches. While German culture is less likely to lean towards emotional expressiveness, American culture is considered an emotionally expressive culture (Trompenaars 1997, 72-73; Hammer 2009, 225-226; Meyer 2014, 195-218). Additionally, we often find that Americans like to express their emotions while talking to other people. Their happy and angry facial expressions are easily noticed. In Thailand, displays of emotion in public are viewed in a very negative light. No matter how
8
frustrated or upset a Thai person may feel, they will attempt to maintain a friendly attitude, a sense of humor, and a smile (Cooper 2008, 60). “Mai pen rai” (never mind) and “Jai yen yen” (calm down) are often used to mitigate any potential conflict between individuals. This is due to the fact that if a Thai speaks with passion and anger, others can perceive it as too confrontational. They need to be “sam ruam” (to retain his or her actual feelings). Because of their strong in-group, they would rather strive to keep positive relationships with other people (boss, colleagues and friends). When Thais want to speak their mind, they often use implicit messages that need to be read between the lines. Hofstede (2010) argues that expressive styles can also be based on how a society allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun (indulgence) or how a society suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms (restraint). Thailand has low indigent rating where people are expected to comply with fixed social norms and values. It is believed that showing affection in public is often considered inappropriate in Thai culture (Cooper 2008, 135-136). Most indulgent cultures are more open to talk about sex than restraint cultures (Hofstede 2010, 293-294). They may also accept public displays of affection between couples as long as they do not appear too ugly. Another interesting point that indicates which national culture is counted as indulgent or restraint is the way a society accepts freedom of speech. Westerners definitely can express their opinions and thoughts on everything (politics, society and so on) (Hofstede 2010, 295-296). This is dissimilar to Thai people who are restricted to freedom of expression. They need to follow strict social norms (Cooper 2008, 60). It is quite strange that while law enforcement (written rules) is more important in most Western nations, fixed social norms and values (unwritten rules) plays a more crucial role in shaping how Thais interact with each other. On the other hand, Americans stand out from other Westerners for being most self-reliant and independent. They strive for freedom to do what is right for them without caring too much about subjective rule sets (Althen 2003, 8). In this case, they can do and say whatever they want. Face negotiation styles The conflict Face Negotiation Theory (FNT) was created by Stella Ting-Toomey to explain how people see and treat each other. He classifies different types of face as, self-face, otherface and mutual-face concerns. Self-face concern is the concern for our identity. Other face concern is the concern for other people’s image and mutual face concern is the concern for
9
each other’s images. (Ting-Toomey 2015, 1-4). In Thailand, because of their collectivistic culture, Thais tend to be highly sensitive to the effect of what they say on others. They highly value group harmony and positive relationships between members of one's own group. In contrast, people from individualistic cultures, such as North America and Germany are likely to be highly sensitive to their self-face. In the West, those who obey to the rules of society will often feel guilty, motivated by individual awareness. In Asia, those belonging to a group from which a member has complied with the rules of society will feel ashamed, based on a sense of collective obligation. The clear differentiation between losing face in West and East is “shame” and “guilt” (Benedict 1967, 222-224; Hofstede 2010, 110). People from individualistic cultures, including the United States and Germany tend to feel guilty when they have done something wrong because they care about their own face. This is dissimilar to those from collectivistic cultures, such as Thailand who feel shame when they make a mistake in front of their own group. This is because they are concerned about each other's faces. Thais tend to care much about doing something stupid in public because they do not want to lose face in front of people. They are very concerned about being judged by others. For Americans and Germans, they do not worry much about how they are judged by other people, but they care much more about their own responsibility to act appropriately and do the right thing. Many white Americans will feel guilty if they accidentally offend someone, based on race, skin color and gender. They will blame themselves for being careless about other people’s feeling, especially minorities (non-white Americans). Shame is social in nature, whereas guilt is individual. Self-concept styles Hofstede (2010) created a cultural dimension called “individualism and collectivism. Societies that place emphasis on the individual interests rather than the interests of the group interests are called “individualist.” Societies that are built on the interests of the group are called “collectivist.” Collectivists like Thais often think of themselves as a homogeneous society, with a strong sense of group and national identity. Individualists like Americans and Germans tend to lean towards individual accomplishments, goals and personalities. For example, Americans prefer to perceive themselves as individuals who different from other people (Althen 2003, 5-9; Weaver 2001, 9-15). In contrast, people from collectivistic countries, including Thailand tend to put more emphasis on the importance of their group/community over individuals. In Thailand, the concept of village (Muubaan) plays a
10
significant role in many Thai people's lives. They are raised with an idea of group-oriented values. This is why they often see themselves as part of the group rather than as an individual. Family is the most vital part of their lives. Thais children are taught to conform to their parents and consider their individual needs to be less important than what their family tell them what to do. In addition, most Thais are collectivist and tend to do things in a group rather than being independent while many Westerners are likely to eat and go shopping alone because they do not need anyone to accompany any of them like Thais do. In Thai culture sharing personal information with others is not considered to be taboo. Thais like to know the other people’s private matters and the others also want to tell them about their own things. In this way, it shows a person’s concerning for others, and the Thais do not think that they have interfered with the other people’s private matters. Americans and Germans on the other hand prefer to keep their personal information rather than share it with other people (Althen 2003, 13-14; Lewis 2006, 228). They may only tell their personal matter with their close friends or family. American and German individualistic cultures are rooted in Protestantism. Protestants emphasize the individual way. They can speak directly to God instead of speaking to God through the priest, the bishop, and the popes like the Catholics do (Cohen, Wu and Miller 2016, 1236-1246; Meyer 2014, 115-142). A new research from University of Virginia legitimates this hypothesis and generates “the rice and wheat theory.” People from rice cultures, such as Thais and Laos are more likely to be collectivistic than Westerners because farming rice paddies requires collaboration with your neighbors. Rice farmers need to work together in tightly integrated ways. In contrast, people from wheat cultures, such as Americans and Germans tend to be more individualistic because wheat needs only rainfall, not irrigation. To plant and harvest wheat, it takes half as much work as rice does, and substantially less coordination and cooperation (Talhelm 2014, 603-608). Being said that, there are some Thais who are independent and Americans who are dependent than the general populations as well. Leadership styles Nowadays, the growing trend in social justice in the West increases the equal distribution of wealth and opportunities for disadvantaged people. Although many social justice activists have been trying to make society more equal and fair, we cannot deny that some societies
11
prefer to create a hierarchical system that categories people into groups. This is called “low or high power distance”. Here is the definition of “power distance”: Power distance can therefore be defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Institutions are the basic elements of society, such as the family, the school, and the community; organizations are the places where people work (Hofstede 2010, 61). Egalitarianism (low power distance) has played a significant role in the West for a long time. The belief that each individual should be treated equally and that social inequality should be eliminated has been a part of many Western countries. In contrast, the essence of a patronclient network and two way relationships between people from superior status and inferior others are prevalent in Thailand. The Thai language emphasizes the importance of social stratification. Thai speakers must choose from up to 17 forms for the first person pronoun and up to 19 forms of the second person pronoun depending on the relative politeness, intimacy, and status of those involved in conversations. The English instead focuses on social equality. They only use ‘I” as the first person pronounce and “you” for the second person pronounce (Knutson et al. 2003, 67). Phi (brothers or sisters) are expected to lead nong (younger brother or sister) in Thai family structures (Bechstedt 2002, 242). Many Thais can exactly know what position, rank and role they should play in society and they are brought up with the idea of fixed social hierarchies. King Borommatrailokanat of Atutthaya introduced the system called “Sakdina” (ระบบศักดินา) which had been widely practiced by both officials and commoners overtime (Holmes and Suchada 2003, 26-28; Wyatt 2003, 61-62). Sakdina was invented to support the power of the rulers and determine how Thai individuals should behave towards and interact with each other (Wyatt 2003, 61-62). Thai Buddhism teaches people to believe in karma (กรรม) and the way it is related to their current social status. They believe that those who are prosperous usually made a lot of good deeds (boon/ บุญ) in their previous life. There is phrase called "Boon tham kam taeng" (Your current status is because of your karma). Another phrase is “roojak tii tam tii sung” or knowing you place, high and low. Many Thais, especially subordinates are taught to appreciate those who’ve done favor for them (“sam nurk nai bun khun”). Bunkhun means indebtedness in Thai language (Holmes and Suchada 2003, 26-30). People with higher status are supposed to be kind and generous (“metta karuna”) to subordinates. When a subordinate makes mistakes,
12
a boss should forgive him/her. These two concepts help ensure a respectful relationship between two people. A boss who treats their subordinates well will earn “baramee” which can be translated as power. When a person possesses “baramee”, they are likely to exercise their power freely (Holmes and Suchada 2003, 67-68. This is why the boss needs to develop trusting relationship with their subordinates to earn baramee. In contrast to Thais, both American and German cultures again are rooted in Protestantism where the relationship between the people and God is egalitarian. There is no such thing as "karma" in Protestantism. Protestants think that everybody is equal in the eyes of God (Cohen, Wu and Miller 2016, 1236-1246; Meyer 2014, 115-142). Americans are taught to believe in equality and equity (Althen 2003, 14-15, Weaver 2001, 9-15). In the United States, the quotation “All men are created equal” has been used in many important historical events, such as abolitionism and the Civil Rights Movements. In German and American societies, the ideal distance between a boss and subordinates is low. The boss is expected to be a facilitator rather has the absolute power over others. Communication between people in an egalitarian organization often skips hierarchical lines (Meyer 2014, 115-142). However, “informality” distinguishes Americans from Germans or Thais. The American lifestyle is generally casual. Americans may greet each other with "hi", "how are you"? And "what's up, man"? This’s different from Germans and Thais who are more informal when interacting with others. With regard to informality, Americans are less hierarchical than other cultural groups. They can talk the same way with anybody regardless of age and socio-economic background (Althen 2003, 16-17). Time and rule management styles In terms of cultural differences in punctuality, Westerners might put more emphasis on finishing personal tasks along a schedule, while Thai workers might complete the project in an intensive last minute effort. The ways people value time vary from culture to culture. Punctuality is one of the most common observations for anyone working or living abroad. Most Westerners, especially Americans and Germans are more punctual than Thais because Germany is one of the first countries in the world to become heavily industrialized. The factory work required the labor force to be on hand and in place at a precisely appointed moment. Compared with Thai culture, in the past, many Thais worked as farmers and most of farms done by people rather than machines. In this environment, it does not matter if you arrive at late. What matters is that your working structure is flexible (Althen 2003, 22-24;
13
Meyer 2014, 219-242). This is a big difference between Thai and Western cultures that can cause both Thais and expats to have conflict when doing business with one another. According to Edward Hall, father of intercultural communication, the United States and 3
Germany see themselves as “monochronic” cultures in which fixed timings and schedules are highly valued. Americans and Germans prefer to do one thing at a time (Andrea 2013, 4
482-483; Hall 1959, 172-178; Lewis 2006, 32-37; Trompenaar 1997, 125). However, those from flexible time cultures, such as Thais are less concerned about punctuality and deadlines (Hall 1959, 172-178; Lewis 2006, 29-30; Trompenaar 1997, 125). You might find that your Thais peers can have a phone call while working rather than focusing on just finishing their personal task. Being in line at the “BTS” (sky train) station in Bangkok is a good example of how Thai people react differently from Westerners. In the United States and Germany, queue cutting is a cultural taboo because things are organized in order and properly, including the way people are waiting in line. Thais are more flexible than the German and American counterparts when it comes to cutting in line because of their sabai sabai (easying going) attitude towards life. When you are waiting in line on the BTS station, you might find out that when the line begins to look too long, someone will create a new line and others will come to stand behind that person. Westerners highly value laws, rules, orderliness, and obligations. They prefer to deal fairly with others based on these guidelines. Fixed rules are necessary and should not be changed. On the other hand, Thais believe that their circumstances and relationships dictate the rules that they live by. Their response to a situation may alter, based on what is happening in the moment, and who is involved (Troopenaar 1997, 31-47). In Germany and the United States, when you are crossing the street, you will see that people are obliged to follow traffic rules. Most drivers stop at intersections or crosswalks for pedestrians to go across the street. But Thai drivers do not do the same as German and American counterparts do. Just because a traffic light turns red, many people in Thailand do not feel a need to stop. This is because Thais place more emphasis on flexibility over rules.
3
Richard Lewis classifies “Monochronic cultures” as “Linear-active cultures” and “Polychronic culture” as “Multi-active cultures” in “When Cultures Collide.” There is another type of culture called “Reactive cultures” mentioned in this book.
4
Trompenaar uses the term “Sequential time” for “Monochronic cultures” and “Synchronic time” for “Polychronic cultures in "Riding the Waves of Culture."
14
Relationship styles at work Building trust across cultures is an interesting topic. Meyer (2014) points out that there are two forms of trust varied from culture to culture: cognitive trust and affective trust. While Cognitive trust is based on the confidence you feel in another person’s accomplishments, skills, and reliability, affective trust arises from feelings of emotional closeness, empathy, or friendship. Westerners from Germany or the United States tend to separate their professional life from personal life, so this means they keep affective trust for their home life (friendship outside work) instead of work life. They can work with their colleagues, suppliers, and clients without getting too emotionally close to them, "we collaborate well, we like each other’s work, and we are fond of each other, so I trust you.” Because both Americans and Germans lean towards individualism, they prefer to separate professionalism from friendship at work. This is why respect and trust is earned by your performance in American and German cultures. However, in a relationship-based society like Thailand, trust is built through sharing meals or evening drinks, “we have laughed together, have shared some time together, and have come to know each other at a deep, personal level, so I trust you.” They tend to combine their working and private lives. This is one of the vital factors that affect Thais to spend time with their colleagues and go for building long term relationships with each other. Thais want to have an office that operates a friendly and family environment (“Gan-eng”) (Holmes and Suchada 2003, 76). Homes and Suchada (2003) mentions that “Nam jai” (water from the heart) is used by Thais to treat others with kindness and generosity. For example, it’s important for many Thais to bring some food to the office and share with their coworkers. If you know the difference between affective trust and cognitive trust, you can understand why your Thai colleagues often ask you to eat lunch or drink coffee together or why your American/German colleagues prefer to keep the boundary between work and home lives. Relationship styles in real life In "peach" cultures like the United States or Thailand, people tend to be friendly (“soft”) with new acquaintances. They smile frequently at strangers, move quickly to first-name usage, share information about themselves, and ask personal questions of those they hardly know even though it does not mean anything. However, after a little friendly interaction with a peach, you may suddenly get to the hard shell of the pit where the peach protects his/her real
15
self and the relationship suddenly stops (Althen 2003, 145-146; Meyer 2014, 163-194; Trompenaars 1997, 72-73). In order to develop a friendship and relationship with those from peace cultures, both parties might need to skip small talk and have deeper conversations. That means everyone needs to find "common interests" to connect with one another. In "coconut" cultures, such as Germany, people are less likely to smile and talk to strangers. This is why it is harder to have small talk with a typical German person, but when you get to know them more deeply and develop a closer friendship, Germans will be more open to you (Lewis 2006, 227-228; Meyer 2014, 163-1940. Germans are friendly with someone who they know very well and they make a clear distinction between "du" and "Sie", but Americans do not. Germans are more formal than Americans when interacting with others (Andrea 2013, 484485; Hedderich 2010, 167; Lewis 2006, 88; Meyer 2014, 163-194). This American concept of friendship is similar to Thais because they also do not have a clear differentiation between "acquaintance" and "friend." Thais prefer to use the word "Puan" (friend) in Thai to refer to anybody who is associated with them. Whether you use small talk like Americans/Thais or formality like Germans, you discover that it is just the way people try to be nice to one another in different cultures. The article from Olga Khazan (2017) explains further that Americans smile a lot because they are a country of immigrants. Because of their diverse language and cultural backgrounds, they smile in order to bond socially with other groups. But this cannot explain why Thais also smile a lot because Thailand is a not an ethnically diverse country compared to the United States. The similarity between Thai and American smiles is the way people want to be friendly with each other. The difference is that Americans tend to be more emotionally expressive than Thais because Thailand is a restrain culture where gratification needs to be curbed and regulated by strict norms (Hofstede 2010, 278-298). It is vital to know that both countries are in contrast to Germany and Russia where smiling is a sign that you are uncertain or fool. Sensitive styles Many Western expats keep complaining about how non-sensitive Thais are when it comes to judging people, based on skin color, race, gender and weight. Some of my expat friends who come from countries that highly values political correctness, including the United States and some parts of Western Europe tell me that it is not ok in their culture to give feedback to someone's physical appearances. In Thailand, it is more normal for a Thai person to comment his friends or colleagues’ biological traits and how they look. Many Thais like to give direct
16
feedback and tell other people directly that you should have whiter skin or lose weight so that they will look more beautiful (at least in the eyes of the speaker). Recently, a Thai beauty company has just advertised that “being white makes you a winner.” This is a reflection of how Thai society favors those who have lighter skin over darker skin. While the taboo subjects that make Thais feel uncomfortable are monarchy and Buddhism, Westerners are more sensitive when it comes to giving negative feedback to how someone looks. Thais may feel uncomfortable criticizing monks, the king or royal family. (Cooper 2008, 320-321). For individualism, Americans prefer to perceive others as an individual rather than belonging to a group (Althen 2003, 162). They do not like the idea of putting people into categories, even thought we might often hear that every white person or black person is socially classified as a single ethnic group in American society. They might value individualism and think that acknowledging racial, ethnic and cultural difference is inappropriate. This is why many American expats have a difficult time understanding Thais when use words or behaviors which can potentially offend any group of people, based on skin color, race, body shape, weight, and sexual orientation (Althen 2003, 165-167). Because the United Statas has a long history of institutional racism (Slavery and segregation), they are very sensitive to any topics that can discriminate racial and ethnic groups. If Thais expect foreigners to respect the King of Thailand and their religious belief, they also should attempt to understand (“Kao jai” เข้าใจ) why their Western friends prefer not to talk about other people’s race and skin color. Achieving styles While the United States and Germany are perceived as assertive cultures, Thailand is regarded as a modest culture. Both Americans and Germans believe that competition brings out the best in people. Americans believe that Individuals who work hard can easily move from one economic class to another through individual effort (Althen 18-19; Weaver 2001, 915). Competitive sports also play a crucial role in the in the United States and Germany. They are serious with being competitive with each other when it comes to supporting their favorite NFL or Fußball teams. Hofstede’s research found Thailand to be one of the most modest Asian nations. They learn to avoid aggressions and lean towards tenderness and compassion (Hofstede 2010, 278-298). There is a famous concept "Alum-alūay" or to compromise with someone. It's utilized by Thais as a way to deal with any too serious competitions between
17
two people or teams. If one side is too hard to win over the other side, they may be told to take the “alum-alūay” approach to soften the situation. While American and German cultures are perceived as assertive, Thai culture is regarded as modest. Few Thai schools encourage students to share their ideas voluntarily (Holmes and Suchada 2003, 92). Thais also have a "Sabai sabai" atittude (easy-going) towards their lives, so it makes them to avoid competitions as hard as they can. Based on their cultural characteristics, assertive and modest countries like the United States and Germany excel in different types of industries. Industrialized countries have a competitive advantage in manufacturing, especially in large volume: doing things efficiently, well, and fast. They are good at the production of big and heavy equipment and in bulk chemistry, such as automobiles and manufacturing. Modest cultures like Thailand have a relative advantage in service industries, such as tourism and agricultural processing. Buddhism in assertive Japan is very distinct from Buddhism in modest Thailand. Many Japanese monks follow Zen Buddhist training aimed at self-development by meditation under a tough master, but many Thai monks follow the middle way (the rejection of extremes) to reach nirvana. Assertive vs. modest cultures can also relate to how people perceive nature. In assertive counties like the United States and Germany, people are expected to control nature, but those in modest cultures like Thailand tend to believe that human is part of nature and must go along with its laws. For Americans and Germans, what happens to them is their own doing (Trompenaar 1997, 141-152) For Thais, what happens to them is the way they just need to accept it. There is a phrase, “Taam bun taam kam” in Thai which literally means your current situation depends on your karma or what you did in the past. This is a reflection of how Buddhism has a big impact on how Thai think. In contrast to Thais, Americans and Germans believe that they control their future and success. People from assertive cultures may show a more dominant attitude, focusing on their own functions and being uncomfortable in ambiguous situations. People from modest cultures are generally more flexible and willing to compromise, valuing harmony and focusing on their colleagues, being more comfortable with change. European Americans are especially more assertive than any other Westerners. They risked their lives to go to the new world where there was more religious and political freedom than in Europe. Most importantly, there was opportunity to advance economically if they were willing to take the risk (Weaver 2001, 9-15). This is a basic characteristic of the
18
American assertiveness. This “American Dream” attitude is still prevalent in American society today. Concluding thoughts This article is based on using cultural generalizations (rather than cultural stereotypes) as a strategy for distinguishing cultural differences between Thais, Germans and Americans. Cultural generalizations are used as a way to discriminate different cultures while still leaving a room for individual differences. Accurate cultural generalizations are crucial for Thais and expats to gain knowledge of differences between one’s own and other cultural beliefs. For example, it is useful for Thais to understand that most Western societies are individualistic, but it would be a stereotype if a he or she assumes all Westerners are individualistic because many Western expats in Thailand might be more collectivist than people in their homeland. In addition, this article has showed that Westerners are not a homogeneous group. The way Germans do things are different from Americans. Even though both cultural groups are considered Westerners, they may act and behave differently. A cultural generalization can help a Thai to be more effective in intercultural communication, but a cultural stereotype is a barrier for Thais to successfully communicate with expats. It is important to view people as individuals rather than based on stereotypes. Stereotyping is a harmful way of thinking because it is a fixed perception that does not allow a room for individual differences applied all individual members of a group. Stereotypes can be avoided to by using cultural generalizations as only unconfirmed hypotheses or assumptions about how an individual member of a group might act and behave.
19
References Anthias, F. 2013. “Moving beyond the Janus face of integration and diversity discourses: Towards an intersectional framing.” The Sociological Review 61(2):323-343 Althen, Gary. 2003. American Ways: A Guide for Foreigners in the United States. Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Andrea, Hamburg. 2013. “Comparative Analysis of German and Anglo-Saxon Business Culture.” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 3(5):481-490. Barna, L. M. 1994. “Stumbling blocks in intercultural communication.” In Intercultural communication: A reader, edited by Larry A. Samovar, Richard E. Porter, Edwin R. McDaniel, 337-346. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing. Bennett, Milton J. 1998. “Intercultural communication: A current perspective.” In Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings, edited by Milton J. Bennett, 134. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press. Bennett, Milton J. 2013. Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Paradigms, principles, & practices. Boston: Intercultural Press. Bennett, Milton. J. 1993. “Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity.” In Education for the intercultural experience, edited by R. Michael Paige , 2172. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, Janet, and Milton Bennett. 2004. “Developing Intercultural Sensitivity: An Integrative Approach to Global and Domestic Diversity.” In Handbook of Intercultural Training, edited by Landis Dan, Milton Bennett and Janet Bennett, 147-165. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Press. Bennett, M. J. 2004. “Becoming interculturally competent.” In Toward multiculturalism: reader in multicultural education, edited by Jaime S. Wurzel, 62-77. Newton: Intercultural Resource Corporation. Bennett, Milton J. 2013. “Ethnocentrism/Xenophobia.” In Multicultural America: A multimedia encyclopedia, edited by Carlos Cortés. New York: Sage.
20
Bennett, Lerone Jr. 1988. Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Benedict, Ruth. 1967. The Chrysanthenum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin. Bechstedt, Hans-Dieter. 2002. “Identity and Authority in Thailand.” In National Identity and its defenders: Thailand today, edited by Craig J. Reynolds, 238-254. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. Crenshaw, K. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, 43(6): 1241. Cooper, Robert. 2008. CultureShock! Thailand: A Survival Guide to Customs and Etiquette. Tarrytown, New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation. Cohen, Adam, Michael Shengtao Wu, and Jacob Miller. 2016. “Religion and Culture: Individualism and Collectivism in the East and West.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 47(9): 1236-1249. Giles, Jane and Howard Giles. 2013. “Ingroups and outgroups.” In Inter/Cultural Communication Representation and Construction of Culture, edited by Kurylo, Anastacia, 141-162. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Press. Hall, Edward T. 1976. Beyond culture. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.
Hammer, Mitchell R. 2009. “Solving Problems and Resolving Conflict Using the Intercultural Conflict Style Model and Inventory.” In Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence: Exploring the Cross-Cultural Dynamics within Organizations, edited by Michael A. Moodian, 219-232. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Hedderich, Norbert. 2010. “German-American Inter-Cultural Differences at the Workplace: A Survey.” Global Business Languages 2:163-171. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/gbl/vol2/iss1/14 Hofstede, G. 2011. “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context.” Psychology and Culture 2(1):1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014. Hofstede, Geert H., and Gert Jan Hofstede. 2005. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Holmes, Henry, and Suchada Tangtongtavy with Roy Tomizawa.1997. Working with Thais: A guide to managing in Thailand. Bangkok: White Lotus.
21
Meyer, Erin. 2014. The culture map: breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. New York: Public Affairs. Nanticha Ocharoenchai. 2016. “It’s not okay: What Thais really mean by ‘Mai Pen Ra’”. Coconuts Bangkok, February 18. Accessed January 25, 2017. https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/its-not-okay-what-thais-really-mean-mai-penrai/ Khazan, Olga. 2017. “Why Americans Smile So Much.” The Atlantic, May 3. Accessed May 30, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/why-americans-smileso-much/524967/ Knutson, Thomas J., Rosechongporn Komolsevin, Pat Chatiketu, and Val R. Smith. “A cross cultural comparison of Thai and US American rhetorical sensitivity: implications for intercultural communication effectiveness.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27(1):63-78. Lewis, Richard D. 1996. When cultures collide: managing successfully across cultures. London: N. Brealey Pub. Talhelm, T. et al. 2014. "Large-Scale Psychological Differences Within China Explained Rice Versus Wheat Agriculture." Science 344: 603–608. DOI: 10.1126/science.1246850 Ting-Toomey, Stella. 1988. “Intercultural Conflicts: A Face-Negotiation Theory.” In Theories in Intercultural Communication, edited by Young Yun Kim, and William B. Gudykunst, 213–235. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. 2015. “Facework/Facework negotiation theory.” In Sage Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence, edited by Janet Bennett, 325-330. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2004. “Translating Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory into Practice. “ In Handbook of Intercultural Training, edited by Dan Landis, Janet M. Bennett, and Milton J. Bennett, 217-248. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Trompenaars, Alfons. 1994. Riding the waves of culture: understanding diversity in global business. Burr Ridge, Illinois: Irwin Professional Pub. Tylor, Edward. 1920. Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, language, art, and custom. London: Murray Jandt, Fred E. 2010. An Introduction to Interculural Communication: Identities in Global Community. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Press. Weaver, G., 2001. “American Cultural Values.” Kokusai Bunka Kenshu (Intercultural Training), Special Edition, 1999, 9-15. Wyatt, David K. 2003. Thailand: A Short History. Silkworm Books: Chiang Mai.
22
Zhang, X. 2013. “Talking about privacy awareness in intercultural communication – A case study of the story “top secret.” Journal of Arts, Sciences, and Commerce 3(1), 45-48.
