Evaluation Paper 1 of 13
Evaluation Paper
Sizemore’s Cross-Cultural Communication Model
By
Elizabeth Sizemore
Submitted in Partial fulfillment
Of the Requirement for
LDR 630 Organization Culture and Communication
Siena Heights University
Battle Creek, Michigan
March 1, 2007
Evaluation Paper 2 of 13
Table of Contents
Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions …………………………………………………….... 3
Shannon-Weaver Model ……………………………………………………………………… 5
Sizemore’s Cross Cultural Communication Model …………………………………………. 7
Cultural Bubble Analysis …………………………………………………………….. 8
In Action ……………………………………………………………………………… 11
Evaluation Paper 3 of 13
Evaluation Project
By combining the research of Geert Hofstede with the communication model of Shannon
and Weaver, a third model, Sizemore’s Cross-Cultural Communication Model, compares the
similarities and differences between the cultures of individuals involved in business transactions
and then factors that information into their methods of communication.
Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions
.
The model above represents the work of Geert Hofstede who analyzed patterns of
behavior in various countries. The majority of the information used in his study was obtained
through access to an IBM database containing the scored results of employee value assessments.
IBM’s information covered a period of six years and encompassed over 70 countries. (Hofstede
2003) The results of Hofstede’s initial study lead to the formation of four Cultural Dimensions:
Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism (IDV), Masculinity (MAS), and Uncertainty
Avoidance Index (UAI). In an additional investigation, the fifth Cultural Dimension, Long-Term
Orientation (LTO), was applied to 23 of the original countries. The additional Dimension
resulted from a survey of students using a tool invented by Chinese scholars relating to “Virtue
Evaluation Paper 4 of 13
regardless of Truth.” (Hofstede 2003) Today, the Five Cultural Dimensions cover 74 countries.
Explanations are listed below:
Five Cultural Dimensions
1. Power Distance Index (PDI): PDI relates to the distribution of power between
members of an organization (or family) and to the level in which those members
accept that distribution.
2.
Individualism (IDV): Opposite of collectivism, IDV relates to the relationship
between an individual and the group. This does not include the type of
government in a country, but to the level individuals are responsible for and
linked to their relatives and other group members. Individualistic societies
maintain loose ties – being responsible for themselves and their immediate family.
Collectivist societies establish close ties within their group – being responsible for
an extended family throughout life.
3. Masculinity (MAS): MAS compares the difference and levels between the male
and female role in the society.
4. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI): UAI illustrates how a culture responds to
the unknown or different. The countries who score low on UAI establish stricter
laws, security measures, and religious practices. Higher scoring countries have
fewer laws, more tolerant levels of religion, and an increased openness for
personal ideas and actions.
5. Long-Term Orientation (LTO): Indicates the values a country places on
tradition and long-term commitments. High LTO shows a philosophy of work
hard today and efforts will be paid off in the long run. (Slow and steady is the
course.) Conversely, low LTO shows the potential for rapid change due to fewer
commitments to tradition.
(International Business Center 2007)
Evaluation Paper 5 of 13
Shannon-Weaver Model
Information
Source
Transmitter
Receiver
Destination
Received
Signal
Signal
Message
Message
Noise
Source
Often presented to students as their first look into the process of human communication,
this model was first developed by Claude Elwood Shannon in 1948. In history, this was about
thirty years into the use of mass radio and at the introduction of the television era. (Griffin 1997)
Working as a research scientist at Bell Telephone Company, Shannon designed his
“mathematical theory of signal transmission” for use with telephone lines. Later, the theory was
expanded by Warren Weaver in the book, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, to cover
all interpersonal communication. (Wikipedia 2006)
Today the model receives criticism connected to its linear representation of complex
communication and to its overall simplicity. However, it originally gained popularity because
for the first time, an uncomplicated model represented the communication process.
Evaluation Paper 6 of 13
Listed below, Chandler (2005) explained the details of each part of Shannon-Weaver’s
Model of Communication.
1. Source: Refers to who or what produced the message – often an individual.
2. Message: The information being sent by the source and received by the destination.
3. Transmitter: the device that encodes the message into signals.
4. Signal: The coded information traveling through a channel.
5. Channel: The means by which the signal is carried – for example, air, light, paper,
electricity, radio waves, or the postal system.
6. Receiver: This decodes the message into a useable form for the source. Two
examples include the human ear or the television set.
7. Destination: The location where the message arrives – often an individual.
8. Noise: Anything that distorts, interrupts, or distracts from a clear signal. The original
theory focused primarily on technical noise – physical noise that disrupts the channel.
Examples include: a fuzzy television screen; a chainsaw running when you’re talking
to the person holding it; the cell phone signal “breaking up”; or water on a magazine
page that runs the ink together. However, over time the model expanded to also
include semantic noise – distraction that takes focus away from the message. For
example, imagine a student attempting to read the assigned text and their significant
other turns on the student’s favorite TV show. Soon the student’s attention splits and
he/she can’t remember much of the chapter that was just read. Additionally, a second
type of semantic noise results from difference in the use of the code. For example,
the information source speaks Chinese but the destination only understands Spanish.
The breakdown of communication did not result from any technical problem. The
message simply was not understood.
Evaluation Paper 7 of 13
Sizemore’s Cross Cultural Communication Model
Message
Channel
Message
Information
Destination
Source
Cultural
Bubble
Culture of Information Source
Culture of Destination
The information source refers to the person(s) who generate the message.
Message The message is the intended information being sent to the destination.
The destination receives the information sent by the source
Channel
Cultural
Bubble
The channel conveys the information. Examples include sound waves, e-mail, telephone,
paper etc.
Inside the cultural bubble, all the components of culture (customs, assumptions, language
etc.) from all parties involved mix and interact. The outer edge of the bubble has a thick
wall that is difficult to penetrate. Attempts at communication must break through this
barrier, or it will bounce-off and end up in miscommunication.
Miscommunication occurs when the information sent by the source is not received by the
destination with its intended meaning
Culture of
Information
Source
Culture of
Destination
By understanding the Culture of the Information Source, the source can identify areas in
his/her own thought and behavior that possibly could be misunderstood or offensive to the
destination.
The Culture of the Destination can be researched before-hand in an attempt to understand
and prevent errors in communication.
Evaluation Paper 8 of 13
Cultural Bubble Analysis
The following illustrates the intended use of Sizemore’s Cross-Cultural Communication
Model. In the example, preparation for a meeting between Japanese and American business
associates involves participants researching the culture of each country. This information can be
found on-line, in books, and trade magazines. The specific information presented for this
analysis was taken from the 2003 Geert Hofstede web-site and from the workbook, Shoulder to
Shoulder: Working Effectively with the Japanese, compiled by Ellen L. Koga and distributed in
2005 by DENSO International America, Inc.
Cultural of Japan using the Hofstede Analysis
•
•
•
•
•
Masculinity is the highest characteristic – showing a high degree of gender differentiation
UAI shows a collectivist culture that avoids risks and shows little value for personal
freedom
A high LTO indicates a society that places significance on tradition and supports a strong
work ethic
PDI score shows that inequality and class systems exists in its society
Lowest ranking factor is Individualism showing close ties with families and group
members
Evaluation Paper 9 of 13
Cultural of USA using the Hofstede Analysis
•
Highest ranking, IND, demonstrates a concentration on self, the immediate family, and
only loose bonds with others.
•
The second highest ranking was Masculinity. This shows that males control the majority of
the power in society. However, the current trend supports women moving into male roles
and away from traditional female roles.
•
PDI level shows a tendency towards equality between government organizations, class
levels, and within families.
•
UAI shows that the USA tends to set fewer laws, allows the individual the freedom to
speak out, to pursue success, to quest for personal happiness, and to practice one’s own
religious believes.
•
LTO placed as the lowest Dimension. This correlates with a culture which is flexible to
quick change and puts less emphasis on tradition.
Evaluation Paper 10 of 13
Analysis: Shoulder to Shoulder: Working Effectively with the Japanese
Power Distance Index
JAPANESE CULTURE
AMERICAN CULTURE
Agree to agree
Agree to disagree
How did you arrive at that?
Job well done!
Neo-Confucianism: everyone has
their place and is treated accordingly
Everyone is treated equal and entitled to
equal treatment
Person's status determines your
behavior
We all put our pants on one leg at a time
Only boss is treated with respect
Boss and subordinate should treat each
other with respect
Since children are used to negative
feedback, young associates can
handle the same kind of treatment
from their bosses. (You idiot!)
Since children may not be used to constant
negative feedback from parents, they may
not be emotionally prepared if their first boss
treats them this way
Individualism
JAPANESE CULTURE
AMERICAN CULTURE
Don't bring shame upon the
family
Family Meeting - Junior can cast the
deciding vote
Here's what my group thinks
Here's what I think
Main source of identity comes
from work - their primary group
allegiance
Main source of identity can come from
individual interest like family and hobbies
Don't be arrogant
Show that pride
We'll all have steak
Make mine low carb and on the side
Masculinity
JAPANESE CULTURE
AMERICAN CULTURE
Male dominated society
History of a male dominated society
Women slowly moving into
more power
Large trend towards women in power
positions
Evaluation Paper 11 of 13
Uncertainty Avoidance Index
JAPANESE CULTURE
AMERICAN CULTURE
Only one way to write company reports
As long as its professional
How you say or do something is as
important as the result
The ends justify the means
Disagreement = Confrontation
U.S. created by loudly opinionated
founding fathers
Long-Term Orientation
JAPANESE CULTURE
AMERICAN CULTURE
Language - verbs and negatives
come at the end. Allows you to
save face.
Get to the point. Cut to the chase.
Lay your cards on the table
Nonverbal communication style:
"Say one thing, understand ten"
Explicit communication style:
"Say twenty things, understand ten"
Negative feedback is given
publicly and loudly
Negative feedback is given privately and
calmly
The associate feels secure that
even if he is yelled at, he will
always have
a job at the company
Constant criticism makes the associate wonder
about his future at the company
Singling someone out for public
praise may make him/her feel
awkward
Publicly praising someone boost his/her
morale
Cross-cultural Communication Model in Action
After the associates complete preparation to understand the culture of individuals
involved in an upcoming bi-cultural businesses meeting, the American facilitator should then
takes steps to “penetrate the wall of the cultural bubble” and (hopefully) prevent
miscommunication. To begin, distribute background material before the meeting. In Japan, the
reason for a meeting is only to share the decisions already made through Nemawashi, pre-
Evaluation Paper 12 of 13
meeting discussions. However, an American might think, “No agenda was distributed in advance.
I’ll just guess what this meeting will cover.” In addition, Japanese tend to shy away from public
confrontation. They will agree to agree even when they disagree. Sending out the meeting’s
agenda allows them time to discuss areas of disagreement beforehand. Subsequently, encourage
participants to speak their native language when brainstorming, allowing time for participants to
formulate thoughts. Brainstorming is a common American practice, however, a Japanese
associate might think, “A meeting that is brainstorming has no value. I am just here to figure out
what they couldn’t figure out on their own.” In addition, frequently summarize the meeting’s
progress to avoid misunderstanding caused by the language barrier. Finally, watch for body
language. In Japan, individuals often do not like to say no. Remember, they will often say yes
even if they do not agree. Furthermore, they apply a non-verbal communication style in contrast
to the explicative style utilized in the United States. Therefore, check for non-verbal clues to the
true meaning of the message sent.
In conclusion, blindly entering into any form of information sharing between bi-cultural
parties might easily enter into misunderstanding. Participants need to take the time to research
not only the laws but the culture of projected business associates. Ideas taken for granted in one
culture, such as no bribes in the United States, may possibly be quite different in another, i.e.
gifts are expected in Japan. To aid in research, numerous tools are available from various
sources. One of the most recognized, Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions for International
Business is easily available on the Internet. Fused with the research of Shannon and Weaver,
these two models combine to form Sizemore’s Cross-Cultural Communication Model – one
method to aid in the process of overcoming cultural barriers and forming a smooth, global
workplace.
Evaluation Paper 13 of 13
RESOURCES
Chandler, Daniel (1995). The transmission model of communication. Retrieved February 24,
2007, from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/trans.html.
DENSO International America, Inc. (2005) Shoulder to shoulder: working effectively with the
japanese, (1st ed.). Koga, Ellen L.
Griffin, Elm (1997). Information theory of claude shannon & warren weaver. In A first look at
communication theory (Chapter 4). Retrieved February 24, 2007, from
http://www.afirstlook.com/archive/information.cfm?source=archther
Hofstede, Geert (2003). Geert hofstede cultural dimensions for international business.
Retrieved February 24, 2007, from www.geert-hofstede.com.
International Business Center (2007). Geert hofstede: cultural insights for international business,
Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/hofstede.htm
Wikipedia (2006). Shannon-weaver model, Retrieved February 24, 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon-Weaver_model.