Joe Hicks Cross-Cultural Communication Spring 2014

Hicks 1 Cross-Cultural Communication Companies are aware of the implications of and potential for growth in foreign markets. To maximize this opportunity, however, companies need to make sure their employees possess the unique skills needed to communicate effectively with individuals from different cultures. In order for business students to be more effective in international business exchanges, they are now being taught cross-cultural communication methods. The question, however, becomes what instructors should focus on when teaching such skills to students. Some educators advise that cultural differences should be considered for maximum effectiveness when communicating with individuals from other cultures. For example, Beamer (1999) believes common communication principles would not be effective (p. 457). Having an understanding of the given communication situation can be accomplished by learning the individuals involved, the environmental context, and the communication behavior that results from interaction of these factors (Beamer, 1999, p. 458). However, the article titled All Business Students Need to Know the Same Things! The Non-Culture Specific Nature of Communication Needs, by Valerie Patricia Goby (1999), states that instruction should not focus on cultural communication patterns, but use an ethnocentric approachone that focuses on one set of communication principles instead (p. 180). In this essay, I present a counter argument to Ms. Gobys non-culture specific approach regarding how to teach intercultural communication. An Overview of Gobys Ideas on Culture and Communication Traditional Problems Goby (1999) believes that considering cultural communication differences represents a cookbook approach (p. 180). She further states that the cookbook approach has several problems. One problem mentioned is that all individuals of a given culture do not exhibit the same traits. For example, an individual in a rural area may have different cultural tendencies than a person living in an urban setting. Another problem Goby identifies is that using standard cultural training when teaching others how to communicate with a person from another culture teaches students to stereotype. She instead advocates communicating with each person in a given culture as if that person were a unique individual as the best approach to teaching cross-cultural communication. In doing so, Goby (1999) also points out most conventional approaches to teaching intercultural communication pays little attention to the fundamental fact that all communication is acutely context sensitive. Communication is situational and idiosyncratic (p. 180). She further believes the situational context of communication should not be ignored and believes todays teachings ignore the complexity of content-driven interaction (Goby, 1999, p. 180). In fact, If we concentrate our teaching on specific cultures and lists of faux pas and prescriptive generalizations, we do not provide an adequate knowledge base for cross-culture communication (Goby, 1999, p. 180). In sum, Goby (1999) believes that current approaches to cross-cultural communication training are inadequate, for it is not possible to even learn one new culture in the setting of a single course (p. 180). My perspective is that the argument advocated

Hicks 2 by Goby in this seminal work are flawed, and I wish to examine what I consider to be key problems in her argument as presented in that text. Explanation Goby (1999) states that there should be a basic pedagogical and training approach that can result in effective communication with individuals of various cultures. Goby instead believes technical and professional educators and trainers should attempt to identify a core of communication needs and good communication techniques that are universal in nature (p. 181). I hypothesize that certain communication skills are needed in all cultural settings (1999, p. 181). Examples of needed skills, as advocated by Goby, would include being articulate, assertive, and persuasive (p. 181). Additionally, Goby believes there are more fundamental commonalities as opposed to cultural communication differences. According to Goby (1999), technical and professional educators and trainers tend to dismiss any notion of similarity in intercultural communication and stress the fact that all of these communication situations are keenly culture linked (p. 181). She goes on to state that cross-cultural communicators need a particular set of communication skills that are similar in all cultural settings (p. 181). Goby suggests culture is emphasized in intercultural communication research and pedagogy at the expense of the personal (Beamer, 1999, p. 457). These ideas on teaching culture and communication are summed up in Gobys 1999 article titled All Business Students Need to Know the Same Things! The Non-Culture Specific Nature of Communication Needs. Goby (1999) argues that cultural differences should not be the focus and a common set of communication techniques should be developed (p. 181). Goby (1999) conducted a pilot study to confirm her hypothesis, and this study merits review to determine how it gave rise to these opinions and ideas. Pilot Study Gobys (1999) pilot study is based upon needs analysis that addresses student deficiencies in order to generate course material to meet such needs (p. 181). Goby teaches at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and her study sought to examine what communication skills the undergraduate students in Singapore want to learn. While she admits the results of the study are preliminary in nature and limited in number of respondents, she also believes the results represent notable findings (p. 181). For example, Goby found that, in spite of the cultural differences between the two groups, her non-native-English-speaking undergraduates expressed the same needs as those indicated by postgraduates in the United States in recent studies (p. 181). Goby (1999) found that the non-native-English-speakingundergraduates in her pilot study had many similarities as postgraduates in the United States despite cultural differences. The author notes that many undergraduate students in Singapore work full-time jobs. In addition, males are required to serve two and one half years of military service. All students must wait six months after completing high school before beginning university studies. Goby believes the work

Hicks 3 experience of the students in Singapore makes their opinions of workplace communication more informed than those of most undergraduates in many other countries (p. 181). Goby (1999) asked her students in her pilot study to list their top three communication needs that they would like to see in business communication classes. Fifty-two students were then given a list of 11 topics to review. The top three responses selected from this list were Job interviews Interpersonal communication skills Handling aggressiveness (colleagues, clients).

Next, Goby compared the results of this study to a survey Geraldine Hynes and Vinita Bhatia (1996) conducted of 250 graduate students in the United States in the 1990s, and she notes the similarities between her study and that of Hynes and Bhatia, and discusses the relevance of both studies (p. 182). In Hynes and Bhatias study, for example, U.S. students had taken a managerial communication class, and they were asked to engage in a parallel kind of ranking of key skills. These students in turn ranked their top three topics as oral presentations, impromptu speaking, and interpersonal skills. The students surveyed by Hynes and Bhatia also noted that job interviews, writing manuals, policies, and procedures, team building, and argumentation were of key importance. The skills these U.S. students considered least important included international business communication, using technology, and managing diversity (Goby, 1999, p. 182). Goby (1999) also cites a similar study, conducted by Lamar Reinsh and Annette Shelby (1996), that had similar findings and that thus seem to support Gobys results. Reinsh and Shelby (1996), for example, found that MBA students desired the abilities of situational analysis, persuasiveness, and clear exposition (Goby, 1999, p. 183). Goby (1999) sees results such as these, along with those of Hynes and Bhatia, as supporting the findings of her own pilot study. Furthermore, in discussing her findings, Goby goes further and states that, regardless if an individual is a native English speaker, or not, and apart from the persons cultural background, all people need to build upon a common communication skill set that is universally applied in all cultures (Goby, 1999, p. 184). She then concludes by discussing the commonalities in communication that should occur across culturesitems such as oral, interactive communication. Goby states that students should learn to be aggressive in discussions when appropriate, tact with sensitive issues, persuasiveness, and expressing themselves clearly (p. 184). Commonalities in Communication The top communication needs identified in Gobys pilot study and other studies discussed in the previous section were further investigated to find commonalities in communication. However, it has been mentioned many times that there are multiple differences regarding communication between cultures. For example, Asians are known to be hierarchical, less direct in conversation, and concerned with face (Beamer, 1999, p. 458-459). Goby (1999) states that despite cultural differences, there are common techniques and consequential goals regarding communication. She believes that each culture has its own definition and description of interpersonal

Hicks 4 communication, but she does argue that common communication practices and goals can be discovered (p. 185). Goby (1999) believes that the non-culture-specific nature of communication needs is beginning to gain ground in comparison to other cross-cultural communication methods. She notes, for example, that Connor et al. (1997) are teaching a common international business writing course in the United States and in Europe. The objectives of this course are to develop writing skills, international business practices, and cross-cultural awareness through interactive writing (Goby, 1999, p. 186). Students who participate in the course learn business writing principles, communicating with similar students in other countries, and cross-cultural awareness through interactive writing (Goby, 1999, p. 186). The course is taught the same way in all countries regardless of the native culture. Goby (1999) sees courses such as this one as valuable tools that can help in identifying universal communication techniques (p. 186). In examining such items, she advocates that communicators should not be engulfed with the complexities of cultural differences, but should instead focus attention to the commonality of needs and the non-culture-specific nature of communication (p. 187). Cultural Differences Cultural Factors There are cultural differences as indicated from the study of culture and communication. Understanding information in mostif not allsettings or contexts requires an understanding of the concept as it relates to culture and communication. Learning about cultural differences and how the differences influence communication is in direct conflict with Gobys approach. Each culture has its own unique characteristics. Understanding these characteristics is important for intercultural communication. To be successful in intercultural communication, the technical and professional communicator must be aware of the attributes of a given culture. The article titled Halls Cultural Factors (2009) notes the differences between high and low context cultures. Rosado (2005) believes this approach is too simplistic, but opened discussion and brought to surface issues that can affect cross-cultural communication (p. 2). Each group has factors that can be confusing to an individual from a different culture. Therefore, cultural factors should be studied and understood by intercultural communicators opposed to following an ethnocentric approach recommended by Goby. High context cultures have many unwritten rules that are a given. There is a lot of reading between the lines. Nonverbal communication is prominent. High context individuals tend to be reserved and do not show outward displays of emotion. There is a notable division between groups, with a strong sense of family. There is strong bond among families, communities, and groups. Long-term relationships are extremely important and are more significant than the undertaking itself. Timing is elastic with the process carrying greater weight than the end result (Halls cultural factors, 2009). On the other hand, low context cultures have their own unique attributes.

Hicks 5

Communication in low context cultures requires more explanation. As a result of taking very little for granted, there is a reduced probability for misunderstanding. Messages are likely to be unconcealed, straightforward, and clear. Individuals may blame others for failure. Verbal communication plays a bigger role than body language. Expressions and reactions are usually clearly seen and outward. Groups are flexible in terms of make-up and can change when necessary. Loyalty between others can be broken easily due to low relationship commitment. Lastly, time is paramount and highly organized with the outcome being more significant than the process (Halls cultural factors, 2009). The cultural communication behaviors described are not exclusive or unique to one particular setting. Rather, these differences take place across all settings within each cultural context. Goby prescribes a universal approach for different cultural settings in addition to the same context/setting in different cultures; this approach is flawed due to deep-seated cultural communication differences. Culture and Rhetorical Expectations Rhetorical Overview Rhetoric must be examined in order to understand cultural expectations when communicating. People use unique tactics when choosing words to express ideas and opinions. Observably, people want others to take note of their wants, desires, and needs (St. Amant, 2003, p. 1). In the article titled Beyond Language: Cultural Predispositions in Business Correspondence, Campbell (1998) states that the study of cultural communication is known as contrastive rhetoric (p. 1). Each culture has its own unique style of expressing thoughts in business communication. Low-context cultures, such as the United States, tend to be more direct. Low-context cultures value short term goals and are made up of individuals. Basically, America is a culture of individualists (Campbell, 1998, p. 2). On the other hand, high-context cultures take a more indirect approach when communicating and encourage establishing long-term relationships (Campbell, 1998, p. 1). Each cultures rhetorical strategies are not random. These strategies are presented based upon the context, setting, or genre, which is called the forum (St. Amant, 2003, p. 1). In essence, the language of a given setting is usually very similar. For example, at most fast food restaurants in the United States the common greeting is as follows: Hi. Can I take your order? A divergence from this expression would confuse most people (St. Amant, 2003, p. 1). Furthermore, each culture may have its own unique expectations regarding presentation. Within a given forum, cultural expectations may cause intercultural confusion (St. Amant, 2003, p. 2). To illustrate, if an American sends a business letter to a business person in Japan or China and uses the directness that is common in North American culture, the letter could be offensive and/or confusing to the Asian (Campbell, 1998, p. 2). Consequently, each forum has an intended function and contains expected topics (St. Amant, 2003, p. 2). Each given culture may have dissimilar purpose and topics for the same forum. A good example of forum is the analysis of a business letter. The typical American business letter contains all the

Hicks 6 relevant information that would be expected, and is direct in terms of content. On the other hand, a business letter to an Asian individual would seek to invite the reader into a lengthy relationship. The two letters address very different topics (St. Amant, 2003, p. 2). There is a difference between good writing and effective writing (Campbell, 1998, p.8). Accordingly, there can be confusion when the above cultures communicate with one another (St. Amant, 2003, p. 2). As a result, technical communicators need to use the rhetoric a given audience prefers and expects (St. Amant, 1999, p. 297). Gobys non-culture specific approach is in conflict with cultural communication norms and expectations. Each culture may have a different rhetorical purpose or topic. Students that are not exposed to cultural communication norms, expectations, purpose, and topic would not be prepared to communicate appropriately in a cross-cultural setting. Furthermore, the ethos, logos, and pathos of the writer or speaker play a significant role in intercultural communication. Ethos, Logos, and Pathos There are three other rhetorical topics that are connected to forums and topics: ethos, logos, and pathos. All written documents include ethos, logos, and pathos. Campbell (1998) states that ethos, logos, and pathos are always present to some extent (p. 3). Each element may not be developed equally, but Aristotle believed the three elements to be inseparable (Campbell, 1998, p. 3). Ethos is the claim of the author; logos represents the topic of discussion; pathos is the readers stake in the matter (Campbell, 1998, p.4). American or low context readers may view a document from a high context culture as lacking one or more of the three elements; the document may be written in passive voice where there is an implied ethos (objectivity, professional competence, lofty indifference) and pathos (the reader should be able to get it on her own) (Campbell, 1998, p.4). The issue of credibility, also known as ethos, addresses how the audience perceives the writer or speaker. The writer or speaker has to make himself/herself look worthy of consideration. Traits such as grammar and vocabulary play a role (St. Amant, 2003, p. 3). Ethos focuses on if the audience considers the given documentation as credible. Simply put, ethos could mean what kind of vocabulary one is expected to use (St. Amant, 2003, p. 3). In intercultural communication, the technical and professional communicator should consider factors such as titles (Mr./Mrs., Miss, Dr.), how to introduce oneself (as an individual, part of a group or organization), what to call the audience (friends, ladies and gentlemen, co-workers), and how to show the audience that the speaker is credible (St. Amant, 2003, p. 3). The technical and professional communicator must consider each cultures expectations regarding ethos. Logos is how one logically develops or organizes an argument or other material (St. Amant, 2003, p. 3). There are many cultural considerations concerning logos. Cultural factors determine what represents a logical presentation or argument (St. Amant, 2003, p. 4). There are various issues to consider regarding logos and cultural expectations. For example, does the writer or speaker use statistics, facts, or other vital information? When using statistics the technical and professional communicator must be careful when assuming what the audience knows; omitting information can cause confusion while including common knowledge may be seen as condescending. One should consider if the presentation of material should be linear or move in

Hicks 7 tangents. Should the material be presented directly or in a more roundabout fashion? Think about if information should be explicitly revealed or let the audience form their own conclusions. Will using history, stories, or statistics be appropriate for the given audience? Determine if it is appropriate to cite sources and if so, what is the best way? (St. Amant, 2003, p. 3). These issues regarding logos, among others, need to be considered (St. Amant, 2003, p. 3). Lastly, pathos is the audiences interest in the subject matter (Campbell, 1998, p. 3). Pathos is translated as the appeal to emotion and should be understood in intercultural communication (St. Amant, 2003, p. 4). The writer or speaker must decide if the emotion is acceptable. In addition, what types of emotion are acceptable and how much is appropriate? Some cultures may find emotion tolerable, but other cultures may not deem it appropriate in public. Does the writer or speaker want the audience to feel a particular emotion? How will using emotion be viewed by the audience? The suitable use of pathos depends on the given culture (St. Amant, 2003, p. 4). Furthermore, depending on how suitable emotion is in a given culture will be helpful when selecting words or determining if a given tactic is offensive. Goby does not address ethos, logos, and pathos in her non-culture specific approach. Ethos, logos, and pathos are present in all forms of communication (Campbell, 1998, p. 3); therefore, it is imperative for one to understand ethos, logos, and pathos in cross-cultural communication. Cultural Expectations Ethos, logos, and pathos are determined by the forum and topic. Therefore, the technical writer must be aware of cultural expectations. The professional communicator needs to understand the purpose of the message in the home culture and the audiences culture. The writer has to choose the proper message to appeal to the ethos, logos, and pathos of the audiences culture (St. Amant, 2003, p. 4). Campbell (1998) gives an example of effectively understanding forum by recommending for low-context English writers when communicating with high-context cultures, such as Asian or Latin, to be aware of the importance of creating long-term relationships; this strategy can be very effective (p. 10). Gobys suggestion of one non-culture specific approach does not address cultural expectations. Each culture has unique cultural expectations as understood by current best practices. In contrast to Gobys beliefs, cultural expectations must be learned and understood for effective crosscultural communication. The Connection Technical and professional communicators need to be aware of the connection between cultural and rhetorical factors. The rhetoric the audience expects and prefers must be used due to the fact that rhetorical patterns are ingrained (St. Amant, 1999, p. 297). Departing from expected norms may cause confusion or be taken as rude (St. Amant, 2003, p. 1). Rhetorical expectations must be kept in recognized patterns by technical and professional communicators because Years of exposure to communicators in the nearby environment have taught each individual how his or her peers expect information to be presented (St. Amant, 1999, p. 297). Rhetorical patterns are so instilled that even when reading or speaking another language individuals prefer and judge

Hicks 8 based on ones native cultural patterns (qtd. in St. Amant, 1999, p. 298). The connection between cultural and rhetorical factors is ignored by Gobys non-culture specific ideas. Technical and professional documents serve a distinct purpose. Such documents use rhetorical strategies to present ideas, information, and attempt to persuade the reader to take a specific perspective or complete a given task (St. Amant, 2003, p. 1). Rhetoric is often defined as the art of persuasion via presentation. In addition, rhetoric is a fundamental part of the human communication process (St. Amant, 2003, p. 1). As a result, technical and professional documents must adhere to each given cultures rhetorical patterns to be effective; this suggestion is in direct conflict with Gobys approach. Rhetorical patterns are presented in the forum, which is the genre, setting, or context. As discussed earlier, each culture has a distinct set of norms for information to be presented (St. Amant, 2003, p. 1). The forum also has a distinct purpose (St. Amant, 2003, p. 2). An annual report, for instance, allows the reader to gage the financial well-being of a company or organization. The forum varies from culture to culture and differs between high and low context societies. For example, France is a high context culture. Contracts in France are usually short in physical length because the relevant information is easily available. In contrast, America is a low context society and contracts are longer in order to give the necessary details (Halls cultural factors, 2009). Each culture may perceive the purpose differently within the same genre/forum. The business letter example provides an excellent example. To individuals from high context cultures, the business letters purpose is to engage the reader into a long-term relationship. The reader from a low context culture would expect the business letter to contain all the necessary elements of a transaction (St. Amant, 2003, p. 2). Other context examples include high context cultures using implicit messages that feature reading between the lines while low context cultures use clear and explicit messages. Individuals from high context cultures will blame themselves for failure; low context societies will blame others. Nonverbal communication is widespread in high context cultures; there is more of a focus on written and verbal communication in low context settings. High context people are reserved; low context individuals tend to give reactions that are external (Halls cultural factors, 2009). Technical writers must be aware of rhetorical and cultural differences in order to convey the intended message as intended (St. Amant, 2003, p. 4). Gobys approach does not address rhetorical and cultural differences. Cultural Rhetorical Differences There is not a rhetorical standard that is accepted globally. Consequently, preferences and expectations can vary from culture to culture (St. Amant, 1999, p. 298). As a result, for technical and professional communicators to be successful in intercultural communication they must familiarize themselves with some of the key areas related to intercultural rhetorical preferences, especially because some of these preferences are antithetical to many standard rhetorical techniques that English-speaking communicators are taught or advised to use (St. Amant, 1999, p. 298). The statement above conflicts with Gobys (1999) ethnocentric approach. A good example of rhetorical differences begins at the sentence level.

Hicks 9 Americans are taught to get to the point as quickly as possible (St. Amant, 1999, p.288). On the other hand, high-context cultures strive to develop lasting relationships prior to getting to particular details (Campbell, 1998, p. 1). Furthermore, readers may believe a product is not worthy of consideration based upon sentence style. Southern Europeans, compared to Americans, prefer longer sentences in written documents, especially in technical documents. In high context cultures, it can be said that longer sentences include more information and are seen as trustworthy (St. Amant, 1999, p. 298). Rhetorical differences at the sentence level can be affected by education. Based on educational levels, acceptable sentence length may vary. Educated Southern Europeans may expect longer sentences to consider the product worthy. If an American technical and professional communicator wrote a user guide for a high-tech product that used shorter and direct sentences, the Southern European reader may perceive the product not worthy and intended for the less educated due to the sentence style (St. Amant, 1999, p. 298). Again, if the writer were to follow Gobys (1999) ethnocentric approach there may be confusion or misunderstanding. In addition to sentence style, paragraph sequence and content differ among cultures. Professional documents in the United States are normally organized in a logical sequence. The paragraph sequence starts with introductory material and continues to an argument or goal (St. Amant, 1999, p. 298). However, different cultures arrange paragraphs in a different fashion. Many high-context cultures begin professional documents with polite or kind comments. Unlike American professional documents, Japanese and Latin cultures begin professional documents with a paragraph or section containing polite, solicitous comments that do not seem to relate to the logical development of the greater written presentation (qtd. in St. Amant, 1999, p. 299). If a document in a high-context culture does not include an introduction as described above, the reader may view the document as disrespectful or bad-mannered. Furthermore, Japanese writers do not include summaries to avoid potential debate; doing so may be offensive. The Japanese document would include relevant data or data before the conclusion (St. Amant, 1999, p. 299). If an American writer were to take Gobys (1999) ethnocentric approach when communicating with an individual from a high-context culture, there could be misunderstanding or worse, be seen as uncouth. Goby (1999) uses the work of Carol Leininger (1997) for support. Leininger (1997) argues that for organizations to obtain a larger international market share, they need to ensure that they take an approach that is not ethnocentric but rather polycentric and geocentric (Goby, 1999, p. 185-186). The above quote is contradictory to Gobys (1999) point of view. Leininger (1997) is in disagreement with Gobys ethnocentric approach. With English being a popular language for international business, it is paramount that professional communicators understand the different rhetorical characteristics of each culture. Clearly, effective intercultural/international communication is more than just understanding language but also involves understanding rhetorical expectations (St. Amant, 1999, p. 299). Having a better understanding of cultural rhetorical differences will be helpful in practical applications. Practical Application Technical and professional communicators can use various strategies and should be aware of several concepts when they interact in intercultural contexts. It is always important to understand the given culture in terms of rhetorical expectations as discussed in this paper. It is important to write clear, complete sentences. Avoid unusual word order, rambling sentences, jargon, idioms,

Hicks 10 and slang. Be cautious about using language related to American life (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2014, p. 125). Examples of wording that should be avoided include touch base and give a heads-up (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2013, p. 339). Humor, sarcasm, and irony should also be avoided (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2012, p. 286). Contractions and abbreviations may not be clear in an intercultural setting. Dates should be written out to avoid misunderstanding. The monthday-year format should be used such as May 6, 2013, instead of 5/6/2013. Many parts of the world use the day-month-year style such as 6 May 2013. International readers may read 5/6/2013 as 5 June 2013 (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2014, p. 126). Write out the time zone or use international standards, such as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Be clear when using measurement symbols. Many cultures use the metric system (25 kg, 10 cm, 8C) (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2014, p. 126). Making mistakes as illustrated above may confuse or irritate the reader. Professionals should understand cultural differences and expectations. The suggestions noted above are beyond the scope of Gobys ethnocentric approach. Negative questions should be avoided. Many high context cultures are based on saving face and maintaining traditions. In Japan, a high context culture, individuals indirectly express negative messages to avoid embarrassing the recipient (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2012, p. 282). Be careful when using first names; doing so may not be acceptable (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2012, p. 287). Using the proper tone can lead to goodwill in cross-cultural communication. Be respectful, polite, modest, and positive; avoid being arrogant, demanding, negative, or condescending (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2012, p. 118). The simple task of proofreading should be taken seriously. Using misspelled or wrong words can be very cumbersome for the nonnative reader of English; examples include there/their and discreet/discrete. The reader may become frustrated after consulting a dictionary and not being able to find the word due to misspelling or confused because the wrong word was used (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2013, p. 339). Using a non-culture specific style as Goby advocates will not take many of the differences into account. There are other steps the technical and professional communicator can take to become proficient in intercultural communication. Discuss other cultures with co-workers or friends to gain a better understanding of other verbal and nonverbal communication customs. Seek training with global and intercultural communication experts. There may be training options available locally or online that can be of great assistance. Professional growth will lead the technical and professional communicator to be able to recognize cultural rhetorical differences. Seek someone from the prospective audiences culture (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2014, p. 16). Such an individual can prove to be invaluable. Often times phrases, gestures, and visual elements are so subtle that only someone who is familiar with the culture can explain the effect they may have on others from that culture (Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2014, p. 16). Gobys ethnocentric belief does not adhere to the cultural differences listed above. Following the above recommendations can be of great assistance to the technical and professional communicator when communicating in an intercultural setting. Conclusion Goby (1999) believes that intercultural communicators should use an ethnocentric approach. The article titled All Business Students Need to Know the Same Things! The Non-Culture Specific Nature of Communication Needs, states that giving attention to common

Hicks 11 communication needs is more worthwhile than focusing on each cultures factors. However, this article is in disagreement with Ms. Gobys non-culture specific approach regarding intercultural communication. Technical and professional communicators should have a thorough understanding of the attributes of high and low context cultures. Intercultural communicators need to have knowledge of the rhetorical expectations of a given culture, including the sentence and paragraph level. Learning and utilizing the concepts discussed in this paper will make intercultural communication a less daunting experience for the technical and professional communicator.

Hicks 12 References Alred, G.J., Brusaw, C.T., & Oliu, W. E. (2014). The business writers companion. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins. Alred, G.J., Brusaw, C.T., & Oliu, W. E. (2012). The business writers handbook. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins. Alred, G.J., Brusaw, C.T., & Oliu, W. E. (2013). Writing that works. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins. Beamer, L. (1999). The imperative culture: a personal comment to Valerie Priscilla Goby. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13(4), 457-461. Campbell, C.P. (1998). Beyond language: cultural predispositions in business correspondence. Retrieved from https://blackboard.ecu.edu Connor, U., Davis, K., De Rycker, T., Phillips, E., & Piet Verckens, J. (1997). An international course in international business writing: Belgium, Finland, the United States. Business Communication Quarterly,60, 63-74. Goby,V.P. (1999). All business students need to know the same things! : the non-culture-specific nature of communication needs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13(2), 179-189. DOI: 10.1177/1050651999013002003 Halls cultural factors. (2009). Retrieved from https://blackboard.ecu.edu Hynes, G. & Bhatia, V. (1996). Graduate business students preferences for the managerial communication course curriculum. Business Communication Quarterly,59, 45-55. Leininger, C. (1997). The alignment of global management strategies, international communication approaches, and individual rhetorical choices. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 261-280. Reinsch, N. L. & Shelby, A. (1996). Communication challenges and needs: perceptions of mba students. Business Communication Quarterly ,59, 36-53. Rosado, L.A. (2005). Cross-cultural communications. Retrieved from https://blackboard.ecu.edu St. Amant, K. (1999). When culture and rhetoric contrast: examining English as the international language of technical communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42 (4), 297-300. Retrieved from https://blackboard.ecu.edu St. Amant, K. (2003). Culture and rhetorical expectations. Retrieved from https://blackboard.ecu.edu

Hicks 13