This article develops a theoretical framework for intercultural business communication which sets it apart from intercultural communication and international business. In the past, discussions on the theory of intercultural business communication have mostly focused on intercultural communication using business as examples rather than including business as a distinct variable. The model presented here discusses the intercultural, business, and communication strategies that are part of intercultural business communication. It is argued that for intercultural business communication to take place, it is not sufficient for all three variables to be present. The three variables interact and create a synergy that reflects the dynamic character of intercultural business communication. In this process, intercultural business communication becomes a unique construct that is different from intercultural medical or intercultural religious communication. The article examines how past articles in the field fit into this model.

Keywords:

Intercultural Business Communication, Models of the Communication

Process, Theories of Business Communication

The Theoretical Foundation for Intercultural Business Communication: A Conceptual Model Iris I. Varner University, Normal

Illinois State

thesis of this article is that theoretical framework of intercultural rJ1he 1 business communication must include business essential varia

as an

able where business is not just used to illustrate a point, but where business as an organization and/or activity becomes an integral part of the theory. As the term implies, intercultural business communication deals with intercultural issues, communication, and business. It is the communication among individuals or groups from different cultural backgrounds in a business environment. As such it has its own identity separate from business communication, intercultural communication, and international business. Some authors use the term international business communication, some use intercultural communication. In this article I will use the term intercultural business communication for intercultural business communication within and between countries.

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1997 Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication (ABC) in Washington, DC. Iris I. Varner is Professor of Managerial Communication and International Business at Illinois State University. She has published extensively in the areas of business communication and intercultural business communication. She is coauthor (with Linda Beamer) of Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace. She is First Vice-President of the ABC. Send correspondence to her at Illinois State University, Management and Quantitative Methods, Campus Box 5580, Normal, IL 61790-5580 or .

39

40

Historically, much of the research examining international issues falls into two categories: international business and intercultural communication. The intercultural business communication research draws heavily from intercultural communication and international business (Lovitt, 1999). However, relying on research from related disciplines can create risks. For example, imported research may provide answers to questions that do not go to the heart of intercultural business communication and impose its own conceptual model of intercultural communication or international business that may hinder the development of more appropriate concepts of intercultural business communication (Lovitt, 1999). Authors who focus on international business may discuss some communication issues, often in relation to negotiation or expatriate selection and training, but the emphasis is typically not on the communication but on functional business problems. For example, Inkson, Pringle, Arthur, and Barry (1997) examine and contrast models of international human resource development. Others examine reasons for failure of expatriates (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1986), attempt to build models for better selection procedures (Nicholson, Stepina, & Hochwarter, 1990), and explore the impact of the move from ethnocentric to polycentric and global staffing on corporate strategies and goals (Kobrin, 1988). While expatriate selection and training clearly have communication implications, these researchers typically do not focus on the intercultural business communication element but rather on the content of the training and the process of selection of employees. Others focus on cultural variables that affect intercultural business, but the emphasis is not on the intercultural business communication process but on cultural attitudes (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, Neuijen, & Ohayv, 1990). Hall (1959) is one of the few who specifically examines the relationship between business and intercultural communication. While the international/intercultural business literature does not focus on communication, the intercultural communication literature traditionally does not examine the communication in a business context but a more general cultural context. For example, Holtgraves (1997) examines how culture influences whether a person uses direct or indirect communication. He finds that Koreans are more likely to be indirect than are U.S. citizens in intercultural communication. Gudykunst, Matsumoto, and Ting-Toomey (1996) found that individual factors are better predictors of high and low-context communication styles than are cultural values of individualism and collectivism. A number of studies focus on acculturation of immigrant groups (Laroche, Kim, & Hui, 1997), while others compare intercultural communication behavior based on cultural variations in role and social rules (Hammer, Nishida, & Wiseman, 1996; Nishida, Hammer, & Wiseman, 1998). Another focal point of intercultural communication research is indi-

41 vidualism vs. collectivism and the impact of the relationship on the functioning of society (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988; Gudykunst, Matsumoto, & Ting-Toomey, 1996; Lieberman, 1990; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990; among many others). Triandis (1989), for example, examines ingroups and outgroups in individualistic and collectivist societies. He analyzes the causes of collectivism and individualism and the implications for social interaction. Many of the findings of this body of knowledge can be applied to business situations. Insights into social behavior, attitudes towards morality, self-perception, and the role of hierarchy are not just beneficial for getting to know other cultures but help in shaping business interactions. For example, the construct ingroup vs. outgroup (Triandis, 1989) will help us understand how competing groups in a business environment will communicate with each other. However, the focus of Triandis’ work is on the theoretical foundation of intercultural communication rather than intercultural business communication. He does not tie the intercultural communication directly to business organizations or business activities. We can build on the research in intercultural business and intercultural communication to model the intercultural business communication process. This article will address the following questions:

RQ 1:

How

can

we

model the intercultural business communication

process? RQ2: How does business strategy contribute to intercultural business communication, or, Why is a focus on business important? RQ3: How does intercultural strategy contribute to intercultural busicommunication? How does communication strategy contribute to intercultural business communication? How does the proposed model help us focus our intercultural business communication research? ness

RQ4: RQ5:

How Can We Model the Intercultural Business Communication Process? The proposed model in Figure 1 combines intercultural strategy, communication strategy, and business strategy. The number of variables that influence each one of the strategies is huge. This model does not claim to provide an exhaustive list of all the variables but only a sample of some of the most important ones.

How Does Business Strategy Contribute to Intercultural Business Communication, or, Why Is Focus on Business Important?

a

Some may ask, what difference does it make whether we discuss intercultural communication or intercultural business communication? Why does

42

43 business need to be a variable of similar weight to culture and communication ? The answer is that intercultural business communication does not take place in a vacuum but in a business context. Suchan (1998) makes the point that business communication must take into account the specific business context; the same is true for intercultural business communication. Others might argue that any communication requires specific knowledge about the topic-intercultural medical communication requires knowledge of medicine; intercultural religious work requires knowledge about religion; intercultural business requires knowledge about business-but one model suffices for all. Typically this view is represented in models by drawing a circle around the process and calling it culture (Munter, 1997), cultural context (Targowski & Bowman, 1988), or exogenous factors (Campbell & Level, 1985). The problem is that this approach oversimplifies the process; it becomes a generic model that does not provide details of what actually happens in a particular communication environment. This view also assumes that one environmental variable is easily exchangeable with any other environmental variable. The specific intercultural communication is merely a sum of the parts; intercultural business communication is a sum of culture, communication, and business; intercultural religious communication is a sum of culture, communication, and religion; and intercultural medical communication is a sum of culture, communication, and medicine. I argue that intercultural business communication is more than the sum of its parts, that the process actually results in a new synergy and presents a new construct. When the business or corporation is on the sidelines of the intercultural communication process, it is difficult to reach the synergy resulting out of the interaction of the three variables. As Perkins (1999) maintains, most research on intercultural business communication concentrates on language and cultural differences and typically provides only a superficial view of a &dquo;mechanized and depersonalized Modern Corporation&dquo; (p. 18). When two business people from two different cultures interact, they bring their own backgrounds with them, but they also step outside their own cultural and business environment and create a new context (Bolten, 1999). Bell (1992) calls this new context &dquo;transactional culture&dquo; (p. 452). For example, if a financial manager from Thailand and a financial manager from France discuss financing options of a joint venture, they will be more successful if they have an understanding of each other’s cultural and business background. They need to find out the tolerance for financial risk that each side is willing to take. They also must understand investment structures in each country. For example, are businesses practicing equity or debt financing? Do individual investors prefer bonds or stocks? However, understanding the other side does not automatically bring success. Even the willingness of the French manager to conform to

44

_

Thai rules does not solve the problem because the practices of Thailand may not be acceptable in France. They need to find a new way-a transactional culture-that is acceptable to both parties, their governments, cultures, and corporations. In this effort, business people must understand the impact of key organizational concepts such as hiring practices, promotion policies, decision making, competitive environment, financial regulations, business laws, and governmental requirements on the intercultural business communication process. They must also understand the relationship of business and culture in a particular environment. What is the social status of business ? What influence does culture have on organizational structures? In addition, in the intercultural business communication process, the participants also bring with them their own corporate cultures. Out of all of these parts, the new transactional culture emerges. The result is a complex system of layers of culture, communication, and business. It would be impossible to tear out the business and simply substitute another context such as medicine or religion. The difference between intercultural communication and intercultural business communication is not just that the latter takes place in a business. In intercultural business communication the business strategies, goals, objectives, and practices become an integral part of the communication process and help create a new environment out of the synergy of culture, communication, and business. As the following example illustrates, knowledge in intercultural communication is a precondition for successful intercultural business communication, but by itself it is not enough (Lovitt, 1999). A Peace Corps volunteer who has spent two years in Colombia has gained valuable insights into parts of Colombian culture. If she was successful in her assignment, she gained intercultural communication competence. She is able to adapt to a more high-context communication approach, is able to accept different time orientations, and has learned to focus on the group rather than the individual. While all of this insight is helpful in conducting business, it is not enough. In addition to the general culture, she now needs to also be aware of the business culture and business environment in Colombia. She needs to be able to relate the business objectives of a firm to cultural behaviors, and she needs to be able to compare and reconcile different business approaches in Colombia, her native culture, and the rest of the world. She needs to know how the organizational structure of a firm will influence the development of business strategies, the flow of information, and the decision-making process. In short, she needs to understand the business context in which she will practice intercultural business communication. Her understanding of the business environment in her own background and in Colombia will help her develop an approach to intercultural busi-

45 communication that draws on her background in culture, communication and business. The business knowledge is not merely added to intercultural communication; it is instrumental in developing a transactional culture of intercultural business communication. There is also an immediate practical reason to focus on business in intercultural business communication. The messages she sends and receives ultimately have an economic purpose. While it is important to understand the other person and to relate to that person, that understanding is not an end in itself. At stake is the well-being of the business. Some critics may see this as ethnocentric profit orientation, but the economic orientation does not have to be exploitative; it can include the wellbeing and economic advance of all partners. The goals of the Peace Corps, diplomacy, international health organizations, and religious missionary work overlap to an extent, but in addition to having a distinct transactional culture, the mutual economic and self interest component distinguishes intercultural business communication from communication in the other areas. ness

How Does Intercultural Strategy Contribute to Intercultural Business Communication?

,

Business people engaged in intercultural business communication need to ask how much they need to know about a particular culture and what they should know about that culture (Webb & Keene, 1999). The study of culture is not an end in itself but should take place in the business context (Lovitt, 1999). As a result, knowledge about a number of variables from the national culture may be irrelevant for the business person in the business context (Lovitt, 1999). The travel-poster approach to Thailand or the folklore traditions of Germany may not be relevant to the negotiation of a contract for the production of automobiles in those countries. In most cases, business people do not need to know details about marriage customs or family relationships to be successful. Business people need to take into account the national culture, the general business culture, and the specific corporate culture. In addition, they must be aware of individual communication styles. After all, cultures do not communicate with each other; individuals do (Yan, 1997). &dquo;Chinese culture cannot talk to Japanese culture except through the discourse of individual Chinese and individual Japanese people&dquo; (Scollon & Scollon, 1995, p. 125). The focus on individuals also helps avoid the traditional tendency to talk about the &dquo;categorical Chinese, Japanese, or Arab audience&dquo; (Perkins, 1999, p. 19). While a simplistic view of culture easily leads to stereotyping, research supports the assumption that a majority from a particular culture share certain cultural characteristics (Hofstede, 1980). For example, as a general rule, Japanese culture is more group-oriented than is U.S. culture. Without any generalizations, meaningful intercul-

46 tural business communication would become even more difficult than it is already. To concentrate only on the individual and approach every intercultural communication situation from ground zero would be exhausting and not very productive. The issue is not so much the generalization about a culture but the reluctance to change one’s view as new evidence appears (Varner & Beamer, 1995). People who communicate successfully in an intercultural business environment are able to recognize their own self-reference criterion-the tendency to evaluate everything on one’s own cultural background-and are willing to adjust their views in light of new evidence. Since the self-reference criterion has a strong influence on our behavior, it needs to be part of the cultural strategy. We need to be aware that business people are members of several cultures. They are tied to their corporate culture, the industry culture, the general business culture, and their national culture. A multinational company may have a very strong corporate culture that may negate some of the traditional cultural characteristics of a subsidiary country. For example, a Mexican employee of Procter & Gamble may have completely accepted a corporate culture of timeliness and punctuality that, at least in the work setting, is replacing the traditional polychronic time orientation of Mexican culture. In the international business culture, managers &dquo;have many interests and reference points in common, and thus they converse easily among themselves&dquo; (Andrews, 1999, p. 45). Based on Hall (1959), Hofstede (1980), Victor (1992), Beamer (1992), and Trompenaars (1993), the values that will influence the cultural strategy are the individual, the role of hierarchy, attitudes towards formality, high context versus low context orientation, time orientation, attitudes towards risk and uncertainty, the relationship of individuals to the universe, and feelings of a culture’s own importance as expressed in the selfreference criterion. But this strategy will always take place in the business context. Just as people from different cultures create a transactional culture for their business strategy, they create a transactional culture for the intercultural strategy. This transactional culture is never static. It will change as a result of changes in the various cultures of the participants; it will also change as business conditions change. When a company goes from an export stage to a foreign subsidiary stage, the need for both cultural awareness and international business knowledge changes. When cultures become more prosperous, their consumption patterns may change and traditional marketing strategies and reward systems may no longer be effective.

How Does Communication Strategy Contribute to Intercultural Business Communication? In their

comprehensive review of intercultural business communication

47 research Limaye and Victor (1991) make the point that most communication models are linear process models depicting a sender who sends a message to a receiver who then provides feedback to the sender. Furthermore, most of these models are developed by westerners and rely on western cognitive frames. Yet, many cultures have their own different cognitive frames which determine what is considered logical and rationale in their cultures. As a result, people think differently, approach business problems differently, and communicate differently. In order to integrate these differences into intercultural business communication, the model needs to break away from the western approach and incorporate different mindsets and cultural orientations (Limaye & Victor, 1991). Over the last few years, several researchers in intercultural business communication have worked on a system approach to communication that is more culture neutral. For example, Beamer (1992) developed an approach to intercultural business communication competence that is applicable to most intercultural communication situations, but it is not focused on business. Yan (1997) also criticizes the traditional western-based models and maintains that they distort the communication process by placing one of the participants, most likely the sender, in a dominant role. She prefers a model where sender and receiver work together, and she offers a consensus approach as an alternative to the process models. While her criticism brings out some of the shortcomings of the process models, I believe that the working together and the cooperation of sender and receiver and the process model are not mutually exclusive. In Yan’s (1997) view, the process approach is unethical because it is by definition manipulative. However, one can argue that if the goal is the building of consensus, then listening, cooperation, and discussion of common goals are as important in the process approach as in consensus

approach. Leiniger (1997) ties together four components in her model: global mission, global management strategies, international communication approaches, and individual rhetorical strategies. The model also shows the relationship among the four variables. It emphasizes the business context. All communication is clearly tied to global company strategies. By getting away from the traditional process approach and concentrating on a more systemic approach to communication, Leiniger’s model seems to overcome some of the problems that Limaye and Victor (1991) and Yan(1997) criticize as inherent in all process models. At the top of her model is the global mission which determines global strategies, which determine international communication approaches, which then determine individual rhetorical strategies. The model illustrates how a given company determines its intercultural business com-

48 munication strategy, but it does not show us what happens when people from different cultures and different businesses communicate. When we apply her model to two business people or two groups from different cultures, her model helps us determine what each side does, but it does not establish the link or interaction. Communication strategy is influenced by corporate communication policies and personal preferences. For example, a policy that limits all memos to one page influences all written communication in the firm regardless of whether that communication is domestic or international. A communication strategy is also influenced by the availability of technology and the functional expertise of the communicator. Furthermore, people have personal preferences for the use of communication channels; some may prefer the telephone to memos. Individual goals, career aspirations, and the position in the firm will also affect how people communicate. Upper managers frequently prefer richer communication channels than lower-level employees do (Daft & Lengel, 1984). Regardless of cultural background, upper managers prefer the face-to-face communication that is typical of high-context cultures in order to process both the verbal and nonverbal nuances of a message. The position in the firm may have a stronger effect on the preferred communication channel than the person’s cultural background. For example, computer programmers regardless of cultural background tend to feel comfortable with low richness channels that do not require personal contact. In addition, the preferences of the audience and the goal of the communication will affect the choice of communication strategy. If the receiver of a message is from the same company, then the corporate communication culture will have a great impact on the way the message is encoded and sent. The sender can count on some mutual communication base with the audience. They share the same corporate culture and are familiar with company processes and rituals that can affect the communication. The same is true if they are members of the same discourse community, such as marketing or accounting. They share similar patterns of approaching problems; they are familiar with processes and many problems in their respective fields. The accepted communication patterns of a discourse community may override cultural differences of the people who communicate (Louhiala-Salminen, 1997). Language also influences communication strategies. People who do business in a foreign language bring many of their own cognitive frames to the communication; therefore, &dquo;the view that nonnative speakers writing in English ought to master its logic ignores the cultural complexity of the language&dquo; (Webb & Keene, 1999, p. 106). If the business partners do not speak a common language, the entire intercultural business communication approach will be influenced by the dynamics of interpreters. Just as the study of culture is not an end in itself, so communication

49 is not an end in itself. In intercultural business communication the communication has a business purpose. The channels, levels of formality, use of technology, content and style of delivery are influenced by cultural and business considerations. The objectives of the business, the level of internationalization, the structure of the organization will help determine the intercultural business communication strategy. A communication strategy that does not take the specific business context into consideration will not be effective. The proposed model pictures a dynamic interaction among the three variables that shape intercultural business communication. Changes in one area will affect not just the strategy in that area but also the strategies in the other two; ultimately any change will also have an impact on intercultural business communication.

How Does the Proposed Model Help Us Focus Intercultural Business Communication Research? Over the last 15 years business communication specialists have increasingly concentrated on intercultural business communication. The number of internationally oriented articles in The Journal of Business Communication, Business Communication Quarterly, the Journal of Business and Technical Communication, and the Management Communication Quarterly has increased dramatically. The Journal of Business Communication dedicated two special issues to intercultural business communication: July 1992 and July 1997. The Journal of Business and Technical Communication devoted the July issue of 1997 to international/intercultural communication. The international articles can be grouped into five categories: the theory of intercultural business communication, practices in other countries, comparative studies, studies of specific communication genres, and intercultural business communication studies. Some articles can be placed into more than one group. I will discuss selected articles in each group to see how they fit into the proposed model. The

Theory

of Intercultural Business Communication

The concern about the lack of business focus in intercultural business communication is not new. Limaye and Victor (1991) in a comprehensive review of the literature on intercultural business communication conclude that &dquo;current work on cross-cultural business communication has paid little attention either (a) to adapt these seminal works on general communication to the needs of intercultural business or (b) to create new models more relevant to cross-cultural business exchanges&dquo; (p. 283). As we have seen, several researchers have been working on developing a more culture-neutral (Beamer, 1992; Yan, 1997) or business-oriented (Leiniger, 1997) theoretically-based approach to intercultural business

50 communication. However, the connection among the three variables is still sketchy. I am not suggesting that all articles must address all aspects of the proposed model, but readers should have a sense how a particular study contributes to the understanding of intercultural business communication. The proposed model will help in this attempt.

Communication Practices in Other Countries The research in this group is a very important step towards intercultural business communication because we need to understand the business environment and communication practices of each side before we can successfully engage in intercultural business communication. Typically, the research in this group does not specifically address intercultural business communication issues but business communication issues in other cultures. Articles in this group frequently are like snapshots of the business environment in a particular culture. At the end the reader has lots of information on a particular country but not much guidance in developing an intercultural business communication strategy with business people from that country. Lee and Jablin (1992) look at the place of English in Japanese businesses. Morley, Shockley-Zalabak, and Cesaria (1997) focus on the relationship between culture and communication in Italian high-technology companies. Courtis (1997) examines the use of and problems with visuals in annual reports in Hong Kong. Krone, Garrett, and Chen (1992) and Krone, Chen, and Xia (1997) provide a comprehensive study of the cultural influences on communication in Chinese factories. They point out that &dquo;managerial influence in China cannot be understood separately from the hierarchical and group-centered relational context in which it occurs&dquo; (p. 311). They place the managerial communication strategies into the political and economic context of the People’s Republic of China. The information is very useful and important for understanding the interaction between Chinese workers and managers. It deals with business, communication, and cultural strategies. When we place the article in the context of the model, we might also want to find out how Chinese workers and managers interact with people from other cultures in a work setting. We might want to know what adaptations they are willing to make in their communication styles, cultural attitudes, and business practices and what changes they would expect foreign business partners to make.

Comparative

Studies

Frequently studies in this group use business as backdrop to illustrate what influence cultural differences have on rhetorical choices. Often the business context is not fully developed, but we get an in-depth analysis of the relationship between culture and communication. Sometimes the

51 authors simply compare several cultures, sometimes they discuss the implications for intercultural communication. For example, Graves (1997) compares Canadian and U.S. direct marketing letters and concludes that the different cultural backgrounds and orientations of Canadian and U.S. readers influence how direct marketing letters are interpreted. Writers, therefore, need to be familiar with the cultural differences. He uses a political fund-raising letter and a letter by a bank seeking to sell services. The focus is on cultural differences that influence rhetorical strategies. The examples illustrate the rhetorical

choices rather than make business the main focus. Ylizlokipii (1998) compares power and distance in English and Finnish business writing. She concludes that the &dquo;social, contextual power, and distance appear differently in these two cultures and languages&dquo; (p. 139); therefore, they affect linguistic choices such as politeness strategies and request strategies in business writing. The main focus is on different communication approaches rather than the effect on or by business. In the context of the model, these articles compare business communication practices, but they don’t discuss how the practices might change if people from the stated cultures interact with each other in a different business setting. Is there just one Finnish and just one British style, or do business people use various approaches depending on the business situation ? Is the interaction always the same, or do they develop a third, transactional approach? The reader gains many valuable insights but is left to make many inferences for intercultural business communication. Articles in this group tend to not cover the center of the model. Examination of

Specific

Genre studies either

Business Communication Genres

a particular genre in a foreign country or several cultures. Frequently the focus is on cultural influences on communication, and business does not play a central role but is used as a point of illustration. Comparisons of business letters fall into this category. Alred (1997); Bell, Dillon, and Becker (1995); Haneda and Shima (1982); and Varner (1988) examine business letters in various countries. The focus is typically on organization, tone, formality, and rhetorical choices. Some articles in this group tie the study of genre to the teaching of business communication in other countries (Alred, 1997; Maylath, 1997; Novak & Dong, 1997). Changes in technology have led to new research areas. Louhiala-Salminen (1997) examines the fax as a new business communication genre. Bosley (1999) explores the use of visual symbols in intercultural business communication, and Tebeaux and Driskill (1999) examine the implication of culture on document design for intercultural professional communication.

compare

one

genre

study

across

52

Publications in this group

are

strong

on

comparisons of culture, but they typically do

communication, culture, and not

specifically address

inter-

cultural business communication. Intercultural Business Communication Studies

Studies in this category are relatively new, but they show that intercultural business communication is developing its own identity. The three studies I will discuss are rather different, but all three address the intercultural strategy, business strategy, and communication strategy. The extent of the synthesis into intercultural business communication varies, but it is addressed. Forman (1998) presents a case study of Euro Disney. In exploring some of the major intercultural communication problems that Disney faced when establishing its park in France, she addresses the intercultural, the communication, and the business strategies and the resulting intercultural business communication fiasco. Forman’s case study provides an interesting twist. Rather than reporting what happened, she presents the problems through the eyes of the French press. By doing that, she introduces manipulation of public opinion and presentation of facts as an additional variable. We don’t find out a whole lot about the reaction of the average French person to Disney. The number of visitors would indicate that the public from the very beginning was considerably less hostile than the French press, but the reaction of the French press had a definite impact on how Disney was originally perceived. This case also illustrates that in intercultural business communication the identities of the players can get blurred. Disney, for example, came to represent the imperialism of U.S. culture that tries to destroy French culture. After rather shaky beginnings, Euro Disney seems to be doing rather well. It would be interesting to see how both Disney and the French press have changed or adapted their intercultural business communication

strategies. Alkhazraji, Gardner, Martin, and Paolillo (1997) explore the acculturation of Muslim immigrants into U.S. organizations. The acculturation involves cultural adjustments, changes in communication patterns, and integration into the workplace. The findings are based on a survey of immigrants. As a result, we see the acculturation through the eyes of the immigrants, their perceptions, their opinions, and their concerns. This approach limits the discussion of intercultural communication somewhat. A major contribution of this article is the separation of attitudes relating to social and workplace settings. This separation illustrates the importance of the business variable in intercultural business communication research. It seems that adjustments in the workplace and adaptation to a new

work culture

are more

acceptable and easier than changes

in one’s

53

personal and family culture. Had the study focused on general intercultural communication patterns by immigrants, the differences between social and work settings would not have become apparent. As a result, the study would not provide much guidance for the integration of immigrants into the workplace. While the implications for the workplace are not the focus of the study, they are stated as future research issues. How will the acculturation influence work assignments, employee evaluations, training, and reward structures ? While the issues are not discussed in detail, the authors clearly establish the base for a transactional approach to intercultural business communication. The last study I will discuss in this group provides a theoretical overview of professional intercultural communication and then illustrates the theoretical concepts with the help of a case study. Perkins (1999) emphasizes the need for business context. She argues that without this context intercultural communication is ill-focused and not effective. Furthermore, the focus cannot just be on business in general; it must be on the specific workplace context. As corporations change, their business strategies change; therefore, the business context is fluid. The same is true for the cultural context. We have to become more aware of variations within cultures. By seeing cultures as a set of shared meanings, we will have difficulties studying &dquo;zones of differences within and between cultures&dquo; (p. 23). The cultural changes will require changes in business strategies. For example, Perkins foresees an ever-changing growing number of niche markets. In order to be able to communicate effectively in this environment, we need to develop dynamic communication systems that can respond to these changes. Perkins then illustrates her approach with the case of a company called VisionCorps.

Summary This article has shown that the cultural strategy, the business strategy, and the communication strategy are interrelated. Together they formulate an intercultural business communication strategy that presents a new construct which is greater than the sum of its parts. An examination of the literature shows that the focus of intercultural business communication in business communication journals tends to be on intercultural communication, country-specific business communication studies, and comparative studies. Only recently have researchers focused on the influence of all three variables and the implications for intercultural business communication. While the research in each area contributes to the understanding of the whole, the implications for intercultural business communication are often only implied. In order to advance the field of intercultural business communication, we need to

54 place our studies clearly into a business context. As we have seen, business is not just a vehicle for the discussion of intercultural communication. The business context shapes the cultural and communication strategies which in turn shape the business strategy. conduct further research on the relationship between culture, business, and communication and the implications for the development of a new transactional culture. We need to ask: What role do the communication, culture, and business background of people play in developing adaptation strategies for effective intercultural business communication? What are the implications for specific workplace communication situations such as evaluations, training, and job assignments? What effect do changes in one area have on the other two areas and on the whole? For example, how will political changes in China affect business and culture, and how will these changes influence how Chinese workers and managers communicate with managers from other countries? How will foreign managers in China react to these changes? What are the business, culture, and communication constraints on adapting their intercultural business communication strategy? · Identify additional variables that influence each strategy as presented in the model. The model does not provide a definitive list of all salient variables. As our environment changes, some variables may diminish in importance while others will grow. Traditional letters play a lesser role now than even ten years ago, while fax and e-mail play an ever bigger role. We should examine how the changes in technology have affected the cultural, business, and communication strategies and what the implications are for the intercultural business communication strategy. . Examine the impact of the theoretical foundation of intercultural business communication for curriculum development and teaching

methodology. REFERENCES

Alkhazraji, K. M., Gardner III, W. L, Martin, J. S., & Paolillo, J. G. (1997). The acculturation of immigrants to U.S. organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 217-265. Alred, G. J. (1997). Teaching in Germany and the rhetoric of culture. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 353-378. Andrews, D. C. (1999). Information systems and technology in international professional communication. In C. R. Lovitt & D. Goswami (Eds.), Exploring the rhetoric of international professional communication (pp. 39-54). New York: Baywood. Beamer, L. (1992). Learning intercultural communication competence. The Journal of Business Communication, 29, 285-304.

55

Bell, A. H. (1992). Business communication: Toward

2000. Cincinnati: South-

Western.

Bell, A. H., Dillon, W. T., & Becker, H. (1995). German memo and letter style. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 9, 219-227. Bolten, J. (1999). Intercultural business communication: An interactive approach. In C. R. Lovitt & D. Goswami (Eds.), Exploring the rhetoric of international professional communication (pp. 139-156). New York: Baywood. Bosley, D. S. (1999). Visual elements in cross-cultural technical communication: Recognition and comprehension as function of cultural conventions. In C. R. Lovitt & D. Goswami (Eds.), Exploring the rhetoric of international professional communication (pp. 253-276). New York: Baywood. Campbell, D. P., & Level, D. (1985). A black box model of communications. The Journal of Business Communication, 22, 37-47. Courtis, J. K. (1997). Corporate annual report graphical communication in Hong Kong: Effective or misleading? The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 269-288.

Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial and organizational design. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research and organizational behavior (pp. 191-233). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Forman, J. (1998). Corporate image and the establishment of Euro Disney: Mickey Mouse and the French press. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7, 247-258. Graves, R. (1997). "Dear friend" (?): Culture and genre in American and Canadian direct marketing letters. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 235-252. Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1988). Strangers and hosts: An uncertainty reduction based theory of intercultural adaptation. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation: Current approaches (pp. 106-139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510-543. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NJ: Anchor. Hammer, M. R., Nishida, H., & Wiseman, R. L. (1996). The influence of situational on dimensions of intercultural communication competence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 267-282.

prototypes

Haneda, S., & Shima, H. (1982). Japanese communication behavior as reflected in letter writing. The Journal of Business Communication, 19, 19-32. Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Cultures’ consequences: International differences in workrelated values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. H., Neuijen, B., & Ohayv, D. D. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures : A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316. Holtgraves, T. (1997). Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73, 624-637.

Inkson, K., Pringle, J., Arthur, M. B., & Barry, S. (1997). Expatriate assignment

56

experience: Contrasting models of international human development. Journal of World Business, 32, 351-368. Kobrin, S. J. (1988). Expatriate reduction and strategic control in American multinational corporations. Human Resources Management, 27, 63-75. Krone, K., Garrett, M., & Chen, L. (1992). Managerial communication practices in Chinese factories: A preliminary investigation. The Journal of Business Communication, 29, 229-252. Krone, K., Chen, L., & Xia, H. (197). Approaches to managerial influence in the People’s Republic of China. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 289-315. Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Hui, M. (1997). A comparative investigation of dimenversus

overseas

resource

sional structures of acculturation for Italian Canadians and Greek Canadians. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 317-331.

Lee, J., & Jablin, F. M. (1992). A cross-cultural investigation of exit, voice, loyalty, and

neglect

as

responses to

dissatisfying job conditions. The Journal of Busi-

Communication, 29, 203-228. Leiniger, C. (1997). The alignment of global management strategies, international ness

communication approaches, and individual rhetorical choices. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 261-280.

Lieberman, K. (1990). An ethnomethodological agenda in the study of intercultural communication. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cultural communication and intercultural contact (pp. 185-192). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Limaye, M. R., & Victor, D. A. (1991). Cross-cultural business communication research: State of the art and hypotheses for the 1990s. The Journal of Business Communication, 28, 277-300. Lovitt, C. R. (1999). Rethinking the role of culture in international professional communication. In C. R. Lovitt & D. Goswami (Eds.), Exploring the rhetoric of international professional communication (pp. 1-16). New York: Baywood. Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1997). Investigating the genre of a business fax: A Finnish case study. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 316-333. Maylath, B. (1997). Writing globally. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 339-352. Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1986). Acculturation profiles of expatriate managers : Implications for cross-cultural training programs. Columbia Journal of World Business, 21, 73-79. Morley, D. D., Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Cesaria, R. (1997). Organizational communication and culture: A study of 10 Italian high-technology companies. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 253-268. Munter, M. (1997). Guide to managerial communication: Effective business writing and speaking (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Nicholson, J. D., Stepina, L. P., & Hochwarter, W. (1990). Psychological aspects of expatriate effectiveness. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Suppl. 2, 127-145. Nishida, H., Hammer, M. R., & Wiseman, R. L. (1998). Cognitive differences between Japanese and Americans in their perceptions of difficult social situations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 499-524.

57

Novak, L., & Dong, D. (1997). Intercultural differences between Chinese and American business. Business Communication Quarterly, 60, 115-123. Perkins, J. M. (1999). Communicating in a global, multicultural corporation: Other metaphors and strategies. In C. R. Lovitt & D. Goswami (Eds.), Exploring the rhetoric of international professional communication (pp. 17-38). New York: Baywood. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Suchan, J. (1998). The effect of high-impact writing on decision making within a public sector bureaucracy. The Journal of Business Communication, 35, 299-327. Targowski, A. S., & Bowman, J. P. (1988). The layer-based, pragmatic model of the communication process. The Journal of Business Communication, 25, 5-24. Tebeaux, E., & Driskill, L. (1999). Culture and the shape of rhetoric: Protocols of international document design. In C. R. Lovitt & D. Goswami (Eds.), Exploring the rhetoric of international professional communication (pp. 211-252). New York: Baywood. Triandis, H. C. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 41-133). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism-collectivism : Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338. Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., &. Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.

Trompenaars, A. (1998). Riding the waves of culture. New York: McGraw-Hill. Varner, I. I. (1988). Cultural aspects of German and American business letters. The Journal of Language for International Business, 3, 1-9. Varner, I. I., & Beamer, L. (1995). Intercultural communication in the global workplace. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin. Victor, D. A. (1992). International professional communication. New York: Harper Collins. & Keene, M. (1999). The impact of discourse communities on internaprofessional communication. In C. R. Lovitt, & D. Goswami (Eds.), Exploring the rhetoric of international professional communication (pp. 81110). New York: Baywood. Yan, R. (1997). Yin/Yang principle and the relevance of externalism and paralogic

Webb, J., tional

rhetoric to intercultural communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 297-320. H. (1998). Power and distance as cultural and contextual elements in Finnish and English business writing. In S. Niemeier, C. Campbell, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The cultural context in business communication (pp. 121-144). Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

Yli-Jokipii,