TPI – COMMUNICATION: Cultural Differences for Direct Communication

[Tessa]

TPI – COMMUNICATION: Cultural Differences for Direct Communication and consequences for Constructive Interaction

Coming from a direct communication culture, I really encountered some challenges while I moved and lived in several countries and several continents. I now realize that both direct and indirect communication have both their advantage and leveraging both of them has grown my effectiveness.
First of all, not all the countries or all the people of the same nationality have the same tendency; every country has people with tendency for direct or indirect communication. Off course there are some generalizations as for example: Netherlands more direct and Japan more indirect, but it doesn’t mean that every single Dutch person has a tendency for direct communication and evere Japanese indirect.

Let’s define first both concepts, as Philippe Rosinski states in “Coaching Across Cultures”:
Direct. In direct cultures, people tend to spell things out, “say it like it is”, say exactly what they mean rather than hint or imply. Others’ feelings are not hurt by bluntness; they appreciate it because nothing is left to guessing. Straightforwardness is a virtue.
Indirect. In indirect cultures, people prefer to imply things rather than say them straight out, which may (in fact, usually does) lead to a severe loss of face. Because loss of face and harmony are both primary in indirect cultures, confrontation is avoided at all costs. Preserving the relationship is of utmost importance.
This dimension refers specifically to difficult situations, when you are in a conflict or when you have to deliver a tough message.
Richard Mead summarizes the direct/indirect tradeoff: “There is a tradeoff between directness, which gets your purpose across but can create resentment and hence be less persuasive, and indirectness, which maintains a cordial relationship but at the risk of misunderstanding.”
Leveraging Direct and Indirect (Source: Philippe Rosinski, Coaching Across Cultures):
“Leveraging directness and indirectness means blending the two communication patterns, retaining what is best about each. The merit of directness is clarity (you say what you mean), while the downside is that it can be perceived as offensive. By contrast, the virtue of indirectness is its underlying sensitivity (you don’t want to hurt a person’s feelings), while the danger lies in its potential evasiveness, leading to possible misunderstandings.”
To leverage the two orientations, Philippe Rosinski suggest being clear and firm with the content while being careful and sensitive with the form. In other words, direct on the substance and indirect on the process (as much as is necessary to avoid loss of face)

As a coach, I learnt to adapt to the cultures I was working with, as teams sometimes simply didn’t accept me encouraging them to apply direct communication. I would love to hear about your ideas, as in the TPI Communication we are encouraged to use direct communication as a coach. Ten years ago, this was my only way I could communicate – as it is my own cultural orientation – nevertheless I started to understand the advantages of leveraging both direct and indirect, as I start to work in Peru and learnt about the subtle differences.
Regarding the TPI Constructive Interaction, in some cultures it is really difficult to see conflict as an opportunity, because of this tendency of indirect communication and avoiding to hurt people’s feelings. I still do have challenges with this point of view, as my own nature is not at all conflict avoiding… I really see conflict an opportunity to grow for myself!
I’m grateful to have broadened my view and thanks to this insight and coworking with other cultures, I started to adapt another kind of communication style, which really makes me more effective where I’m living right now.

[Author]

Posts