Whatever the culture, there’s a tongue in our head. Some use it, some hold it, some bite it. For the French it is a rapier, thrusting in attack; the English, using it defensively, mumble a vague, confusing reply; for Italians and Spaniards it is an instrument of eloquence; Finns and East Asians throw you with constructive silence. Silence is a form of speech, so don’t interrupt it!
One of the factors leading to poor communication is often overlooked: the nationals of each country use their language and speech in a different way. Language is a tool of communication, delivering a message—but it is much more than that: it has strengths and weaknesses which project national character and even philosophy.
How do the French use their language? Like a rapier. French is a quick, exact, logical language and the French fence with it, cutting, thrusting and parrying, using it for advantage, expecting counter thrusts, retorts, repartee and indeed the odd touché against them. French is a good tool for arguing and proving one’s point. It is fair play for the French to manipulate their language, often at great speed, to bewilder and eventually corner their opponent, leaving the latter breathless and without reply.
The English use their language differently—to its best advantage, certainly, but they are not quick to attack with it. They will lean heavily on understatement and reservation; they will concede points to their opponent early on to take the steam out of the argument, but their tone implies that even so, right is on their side. They know how to be vague in order to maintain politeness or avoid confrontation, and they are adept at waffling when they wish to procrastinate or cloud an issue. (It is impossible to waffle in French, as each word has a precise meaning.) The English will use a quiet tone to score points, always attempting to remain low key. Scots and the Northern English may emphasize their accents in order to come across as genuine, sincere or warm-hearted, while the Southern English may use certain accents to indicate an influential background, a particular school or good breeding.
Spaniards and Italians regard their languages as instruments of eloquence and they will go up and down the scale at will, pulling out every stop if need be to achieve greater expressiveness. To convey their ideas fully they will ransack an extensive vocabulary, use their hands, arms and facial expressions and make maximum use of pitch and tone. They are not necessarily being dramatic or overemotional. They want you to know how they feel. They will appeal, directly and strongly, to your good sense, warm heart or generosity if they want something from you, and often you have to decide there and then whether to say yes or no.
Germans, like the French, rely to a large extent on logic, but tend to amass more evidence and labor their points more than either the British or the French. The French, having delivered their thrust, are quite prepared to be parried and then have their defense pierced by a superior counter thrust. Germans are not; they come in with heavier armor and have usually thought through the counter arguments. Often the best way to deal with a German is to find common ground and emphasize solidarity and reliability in cooperation. The splendid German language is heavy, cumbersome, logical, disciplined and has such momentum that it is invincible in any head-on collision with another language. But that momentum can be deflected by a sensitive negotiator and all parties can benefit.
Scandinavians are something else. In the long dark nights they have thought about matters well in advance and they list all the “pros and cons” before giving you their conclusion, which they will justify. They will not abandon their decision easily for they believe they have proven their case, but on the other hand they do not ask for too much. Swedes wield their language in a democratic manner with only a modicum of personal deference and with great egalitarian informality. They cut out the niceties and get down to brass tacks. Finns are friendlier and more reticent, but with the same modern equal-footing approach. The Finnish language is much more eloquent and flowery than Swedish, Danish or Norwegian, but the bottom line is still dryly factual, succinct and well thought out. You can use any kind of humor with a Finn, linguistic or otherwise. A Dane will go along with you for a while, especially if the joke is at the expense of the Swedes. Swedes will accept your humor if it doesn’t affect their profit margin. But never tell jokes about Norway to Norwegians—they don’t understand them.
American speech is quick, mobile and opportunistic, reflecting the speed and agility of the young country. The wisecrack is basic to their discourse. American humor excels in quips, barbed retorts and repartee, typical of the dog-eat-dog society of early America.
Exaggeration and hyperbole are at the bottom of most American expressions, contrasting sharply with the understated nature of the British. In the early days of pioneering, when immigrants speaking many varieties of halting English were thrown together in simple, often primitive surroundings, plainness and unsophisticated language were at a premium. The well-worn cliché was more understandable than originality or elegance of expression. The American language has never recovered from the exigencies of this period. The ordinary man’s speech tends to be “tough talk,” rather reminiscent of cowboy parlance or Chicago gangland speech of the 1920s. The nation’s obsession with show business and the pervasive influence of Hollywood have accentuated and, to some extent, perpetuated this trend. To make a start is to get the show on the road, to take a risk in a business venture is to fly by the seat of your pants, lawyers are shysters, accountants are bean counters, and, if you have no choice, it’s the only game in town.
The Japanese use language in a completely different way from everyone else. What is actually said has hardly any meaning or significance whatsoever. The Japanese use their language as a tool of communication, but the words and sentences themselves give little indication of what they are saying. What they want and how they feel are indicated by the way they address their conversation partner. Smiles, pauses, sighs, grunts, nods and eye movements convey everything. The Japanese leave their fellow Japanese knowing perfectly well what has been agreed to, no matter what was said. Foreigners leave a conversation or meeting with the Japanese with a completely different idea. Usually they think that everything has gone swimmingly, as the Japanese would never offend them by saying anything negative or unpleasant.
In British English, French and a good number of languages, people often aspire to elegantly polite discourse in order to show respect to their interlocutor. This process is carried on to a much greater degree in Japanese, where standards of politeness are much higher than in the United States and Europe. On all ceremonial occasions, and these may include formal business meetings, attendees use a whole sequence of expressions that bears little or no relation to the actual sentiments of the individuals present. The language is instead aimed at conveying the long-term relationships which are envisaged and the depth of expectation that each participant has.
When they translate Japanese conversations, other nationalities tend to look at the content rather than the mood. Consequently, all they hear is platitudes or, even more suspicious, flattery. When at each meeting hosted by the Japanese, they go through the ritual of thanking their visitors for giving up their valuable time and for suffering the prevailing weather conditions, Anglo-Saxons in particular begin to doubt the sincerity of their hosts. The Japanese, however, are simply being courteous and caring.
The whole question of people using different speech styles and wielding their language in the national manner inevitably leads to misunderstandings not only of expression but also of intent. The Japanese and English may distrust Italians because they wave their hands about, or Spaniards and Arabs because they sound emotional and loud or prone to exaggeration. The French may appear offensive because of their directness or frequent use of cynicism. No one may really know what the Japanese and Finns are thinking or what they actually said, if they said anything at all. Germans may take the English too literally and completely miss nuances of humor, understatement or irony. Northern peoples may simply consider that Latins speak too fast to be relied on. Languages are indeed spoken at different speeds. Hawaiian and some Polynesian languages barely get through 100 syllables per minute, while English has been measured at 200, German at 250, Japanese at 310 and French at 350 syllables per minute.
We have, therefore, a variety of cultures using speech not only according to the strictures imposed by grammar, vocabulary and syntax, but in a manner designed to achieve the maximum impact. These different speech styles, whether used in translation or not, do nothing to improve communication in the international forum.
Not many people are clever linguists, and all over the world thousands of misunderstandings are caused every day through simple mistakes. Here are some enjoyable—and not terribly damaging—examples.
We attempt to surmount the linguistic hurdle by learning the language of our partner well or by using an interpreter. The former method is preferable, as we can become more fully involved in the conversation and are better able to express ourselves in terms of intent, mood, nuance and emotion. When the issues are noncontroversial and the agenda is smooth, few obstacles arise. When a misunderstanding arises, however, we abandon neutrality and cultural sensitivity, and our language swings back into culture-bound mode.
The following figures give you an idea of how some countries’ communication patterns look when they are mapped out. Italians believe in full explicitness and will wax eloquent (see Figure 5.1). Finns, by contrast, strive to phrase their statement of intent in as few words as possible, as in their culture this is the route to succinctness and clarity (see Figure 5.2).
Germans tend to push resolutely forward in a constant, believing-in-oneself style (Figure 5.3). The French use a variety of tactics, including imaginative appeal, but invariably adhere to strict principles of logic throughout their discourse (Figure 5.4).
The English, like Germans, go steadily forward, but often introduce humor or understatement to soften their style (Figure 5.5). South Americans and Swedes go in for long discussions although in entirely different manners (Figure 5.6).
Spaniards use lengthy discourse to get to know their interlocutor well and to develop friendship and loyalty as a basis on which they can build their transaction (Figure 5.7).
Americans regard negotiation as a give-and-take scenario, where both sides should put all their cards on the table at the beginning and waste no time beating around the bush. Their style is confrontational and often aggressive (Figure 5.8).
Communication is a two-way process, involving not only the communicative skill of the speaker but, just as important, the listening habits of the interlocutor or audience. Just as different cultures don’t use speech the same way, neither do they listen the same way. There are good listeners (Germans, Swedes, Finns) and there are bad ones (French, Spaniards). Others, such as the Americans, listen carefully or indifferently, depending on the nature of the conversation or address. Figures 5.9 through 5.17 give some indication of the main concerns of several nationalities when they are obliged to listen. Figure 5.18 summarizes the principal expectations of audiences belonging to different cultures.
Different languages are used in different ways and with a variety of effects. Managers of all nationalities know how to speak to best effect to their compatriots, yet they are in fact only vaguely aware of their dependence on the built-in linguistic characteristics that make their job easier.
Germans belong to a data-oriented, low-context culture (see Chapter 3 for an explanation of these concepts) and like receiving detailed information and instruction to guide them in the performance of tasks at which they wish to excel. In business situations German is not used in a humorous way, neither do its rigid case-endings and strict word order allow the speaker to think aloud very easily. With few homonyms (in contrast, for example, to Chinese) and a transparent word-building system, the language is especially conducive to the issuing of clear orders. The almost invariable use of the formal Sie (you) in business fits in well with the expectation of obedience and reinforces the hierarchical nature of the communication.
As far as motivating subordinates is concerned, German would seem to be less flexible than, for instance, bubbly American English. The constrictive effect of case-endings makes it difficult for German speakers to chop and change in the middle of a sentence. They embark on a course, plotted partly by gender, partly by morphology, in a straitjacket of Teutonic word order. Because the verb comes at the end of the sentence, the hearer is obliged to listen carefully to extract the full meaning. The length and complexity of German sentences reflect the German tendency to distrust simple utterances. Information-hungry Germans are among the best listeners in the world, and their language fits the bill.
The United States is a young, vigorous, ebullient nation and its language reflects the national energy and enthusiasm. Americans exaggerate in order to simplify—low-key Britons feel Americans go “over the top,” but the dynamic cliché wears well in the U.S.
The frequent tendency to hyperbolize, exaggerate chances of success and overstate aims or targets allows American managers to “pump up” their subordinates—to drive them on to longer hours and speedier results. American salespeople are also used to the “hard sell” approach. Tough talk, quips, wisecracks, barbed repartee—all available in good supply in American English—help them on their way.
The ubiquitous use of get facilitates clear, direct orders. You get up early, you get going, you get there first, you get the client and you get the order, got it? The many neologisms in American English, used liberally by managers, permit them to appear up to date, aphoristic, humorous and democratic.
In Britain the English language has quite different qualities and, as a management tool, is much more subtle. British staff members who are put off by American exaggeration and tough talk will fall for a more understated, laid-back version of English that reflects their own characteristics. Managers manipulate subordinates with friendly small talk, humor, reserved statements of objectives and a very casual approach to getting down to work. You don’t arrive on the dot and work around the clock. The variety of types of humor available in the U.K. enables managers to be humorous, to praise, change direction, chide, insinuate and criticize (themselves as well as others) at will. Irony is a powerful weapon either way.
Both British and American English facilitate the coining of new words. American managers and staff often use business terminologies coined yesterday, which neither fully understands but which unite them in wonder at the spanking newness of the expression. Britons, in contrast, shy away from neologisms, often preferring woolly, old-fashioned phrases that frequently lead to sluggish thinking. “Muddling through” is the result—and the British are famous for it.
Foreigners follow British English with difficulty, for in fact they are listening to messages in a code. American and German criticism is blunt and direct; the British version is incidental and oblique. Managers, when praising, may seem to condemn. When persuading, they will strive to appear laid back. When closing a project they will take a casual stance, and when being tough they will feign great consideration, even kindness.
There is a certain similarity in the language of management in Britain and Japan, although the basic and ever-present indirectness of the Japanese style makes the British, by comparison, seem like clinical thinkers! Nevertheless, the Japanese have an aversion to “rocking the boat.” British managers’ understated criticisms, their humorous shafts in attack and their apparent reasonableness of expression at all times are gambits to preserve harmony in their teams. In Japan the drive toward harmony is so strong that it takes priority over clarity, even over truth.
Japanese managers do not issue orders: they only hint at what has to be done. The language is custom designed for this. The structure, which normally stacks up a line of subordinate clauses before the main one, invariably lists the justifications for the directive before it reaches the listener.
“Complete September’s final report by 5:30 P.M.” comes out in Japanese as “It’s October 10th today, isn’t it? Our controller hasn’t asked to see September’s report yet. I wonder if he’ll come around tomorrow. You never know with him…” The actual order is never given—there is no need, the staff are already scrambling to their books.
Japanese has built-in mechanisms that create a strong impact on the listener. The general mandatory politeness creates a climate where staff appear to be quietly consulted in the most courteous manner. This very courtesy encourages their support and compliance. In fact, though, they have no choice, as the hierarchy of communication is already settled by the status of the manager based on the quality and date of his university degree. The use of honorifics, moreover, reinforces the hierarchical situation. The different set of expressions (again mandatory) used in formulating the subordinates’ responses to the manager’s remarks closes the circle of suggestion, absorption, compliance.
Other features of the Japanese language that serve managers in instructing and motivating staff are the passive voice, used for extra politeness; the impersonal verb, which avoids casting direct blame; and the use of silence on certain issues, which clearly indicates the manager’s opinion to the subordinate. Reported speech is not popular in Japan, for Japanese people subscribe to the myth that all one-to-one conversations are delivered in confidence and should not be repeated to others, and indeed the language does not possess a mechanism for reported speech.
French managers inhabit quite a different linguistic world. They are clinically direct in their approach and see no advantage in ambiguity or ambivalence. The French language is crisp and incisive, a kind of verbal dance or gymnastics of the mouth, which presses home its points with an undisguised, logical urgency. It is rational, precise, ruthless in its clarity.
The French educational system, from childhood, places a premium on articulateness and eloquence of expression. Unlike Japanese, Finnish or British children, French children are rarely discouraged from being talkative. In the French culture loquacity is equated with intelligence, and silence does not have a particularly golden sheen. Lycée, university and École normale supérieure education reinforces the emphasis on good speaking, purity of grammar and mastery of the French idiom. The French language, unquestionably, is the chief weapon wielded by managers in directing, motivating and dominating their staff. Less articulate French staff members will show no resentment. Masterful use of language and logic implies, in their understanding, masterful management.
In the Gulf States a good manager is a good Muslim. The language used will make frequent references to Allah and align itself with the precepts and style of the Koran. A didactic management style is the result. The inherent rhetorical qualities of the Arabic language (see Figure 5.24) lend themselves to reinforcing the speaker’s sincerity. A raised voice is a sign not of anger, but of genuine feeling and exhortation.
University Professor Nigel Holden sees Russian, where social distance is encoded in highly subtle ways, as resembling Japanese as a flexible management language. Areas such as leadership or motivation of employees was not of importance to Soviet managers. They used threats and coercion to produce the results demanded by socialist “planning.” How Russian will develop as a language of management in the future will depend on modes of address using names and titles and on the development of formal and informal mechanisms which do not remind subordinates of coercion and control.
Swedish as a language of management leans heavily on the Du (informal) form of you and on dry, courteous expressions that clearly put managers at the same level as their colleagues. I recently heard a TV journalist in his mid-twenties address the prime minister as Du.
To take a very different example of the use of the informal second-person pronoun, the Spanish tu is directed toward staff at a much more vertical angle. However, the declaimed nature of their delivery, with typical Spanish fire and emphasis, makes their pronouncements and opinions virtually irreversible. Spanish, with its wealth of diminutive endings, its rich vocabulary and multiple options on most nouns, is extremely suitable for expressing emotion, endearments, nuances and intimacies. Spanish managers woo, persuade and cajole. They want you to know how they feel. The language exudes warmth, excitement, sensuousness, ardor, ecstasy and sympathy.
