Interactions between North Americans and Japanese :

Considerations of Communication Style

The Summary

Communication style has a very big impact on the dynamics of face-to-face

encounters, that is, whether a conversation proceeds smoothly or by fits and starts,
whether both continually interrupt each other or are both able to talk simultaneously
without interrupting and whether their style of listening match. Differences in ethnic
background coupled with those of communication style probably increase chances that
implicit unverbalized matters will be overlooked or misinterpreted. To be able to
understand deeper and more sophisticated effects of style differences can take years. In
exploring such differences of “the other”, one cannot help but come to understand the
cultural factors that have shaped one’s own style. In the communication between
Japanese and Non-Japanese there are intercultural communication blocks that have to be
considered, which are, problems on direct and indirectness, individuality and groups
view, decision making, and discussion.

Components of Communication Style

According to some experts there are various things included in the components
of communication style, such as: topics of discussions, favorite interaction forms -ritual,
repartee, argument, and self disclosure- and involvement depth, as well as the channel
people rely upon (Dean Barlund) ; behaviors –gesticulation, eye contact, speech and
kinetic rhythm, and listening behavior- (Erickson) ; interruptions, pauses, laughter,
inductive and deductive statements, and types of question ( E.S Johnson). However, in
this discussion, there are three variables suggested as a core to explore communication
style: (1) orientation to interaction, (2) code preference, and (3) interaction format.
These are not to be understood as stereotype descriptions of all members of any cultural
group but rather as stylistic preferences of the cultural group as a whole.
Communication style orientations are anchored in cultural standards but allow for
individual movement depending upon the situation and cultural constraints.

1. Orientation to Interaction
North Americans Japanese
Locus of Self Individualistic Interpersonal
View of Reality Objective Subjective
 The North American built the values of self-sufficiency and independence. It is
important to acknowledge differences of experience, ability, and opinion which separate
individuals and highlight who we are. Japanese are less anchored by an internally
identified self-concept as by lines leading to friends, colleagues, and family.
The orientation brought to North Americans was objectivity, emphasizing a
belief in cause and effect in linear determinism. Validity and reliability are prerequisites
of “solid” research; conclusions or action plans should follow clearly from premises and
needs analyses. In contrast, Japanese have traditionally been more oriented toward a
human relations (ningen kankei) reality: “In order to attain an end, whether social or
nonsocial, the creation, maintenance, or manipulation of a relevant social relationship is
a foremost and indispensable means.”
Thus, in their style of communication Japanese preferred passive-withdrawing
forms that allowed interpersonal accommodation with the target person, while the North
Americans frequently chose more individualistic, active-aggressive forms of criticism
and focused on the objective problem rather than the person. However, within the two
cultural ideals presented, then there is evidence of change: North Americans are being
criticized for extreme focus on self and urged to consider the rewards of more collective
attitudes, while the Japanese are becoming aware that intergroup competition and
intragroup divisiveness can be paralyzing; they begin to recognize the importance of
being more objective in planning and problem solving.

2. Code Preference
North Americans Japanese
Verbal (and nonverbal) Nonverbal (and verbal)

For anyone whose identity emerges from being separate and unique differences
between self and others are emphasized. Primers for effective communication warn
against making assumptions about others’ needs or want and stress speaking about
yourself. North American consciously separate fact, inference and judgment, and they
suggest withholding judgment upon entering new culture. They are admonished not to
fill in the meaning before checking it out. It is also assumed that only through detailed
verbalization can one most concretely and accurately “check out” what the other means.
In the other hand, Japanese prefer a style of communicating that appreciates and
employs assumptions about the opinions and feelings of their compatriots. There is a
vast difference between a primary emphasis upon verbalization or written forms and a
primary emphasis upon what can be sensed, guessed at, and inferred from the total
situation before verbalization. An impressive rather than expressive emphasis places
high value on the person who can “hear one and understand ten.” Speaking is no longer
considered a vice; the concept of enryo translates into a hesitancy to speak frankly and
immediately and shows concern over being labeled thoughtless.
When crossing cultural boundaries a common problem is the inability to
distinguish between the literal and more figurative or ritualistic meanings of a phrase or
behavior. While this is a universal problem, a newcomer to Japan is especially
confronted with this issue because of the cultural emphasis on form. The inability to
learn quickly about the forms and rituals of Japan by asking the right question and
getting the right answer is in part the basis for perceptions that Japan is an ambiguous
and mysterious culture. Being able to comprehend the interplay among significant
situational variables and being able to assess how one fits into the overall situation is
critical in creating successful face-to-face interactions with the Japanese.

3. Interaction Format
North Americans Japanese
Persuasive Harmonizing
Quantitative Holistic
Pragmatic Process-oriented

The persuasive function is highly emphasized for North Americans. If one can
be shown the facts, the numbers, the details, or the direct correlation between cause and
effect logically and objectively, he or she will accept the point. Resistance to the point
can imply that the receiver is unreasonable, illogical, too emotional, or stubborn. As
well as in satisfying conversation, it is felt that “two-way contrast is a point of
departure.” All parties to a conversation are responsible for their own opinion; active
give-and-take is expected. In the other hand, the Japanese concept of conversation
includes an attitude of sharing, of “I start my sentence and you finish it” rather than “I
finish my sentence and you say yours”. Japanese do, of course, interact in persuasive
modes; traditionally, however, one is not persuaded solely by verbal skills or logical
construction of an argument, rather, one can be brought over by another’s status and
age, or by emotional, empathetic feeling that the situation or the relationship might call
forth.
 For North Americans the ultimate purpose of communication is often pragmatic.
Behavior accumulates and contributes to accomplishing an end result. Experience must
be quantified so that the most expedient logical action can be taken. The ideal is to
know exactly how much for exactly how long to accomplish exactly what. Evaluation,
too, must be in the form of numbers, not feelings. However, what North Americans may
quantify, Japanese may deal with as common sense. They would prefer an end-of-day
discussion and then resolve as individuals and as a group to “do better” for tomorrow.
The Japanese don’t put a percentage. The Japanese place emphasis on the process of
doing something as well as on the product or end result. Events are not separated from
the process or from the people involved.
The variable of “interaction format” greatly influences the establishment and
maintenance of relationships between Japanese and North Americans. It is important to
realize that in Japan one rarely accomplishes anything by oneself. Although one person
may carry the majority of responsibility, it is vital to continually involve others so that
an overall feeling of group effort and achievement is shared. Determining who these
“appropriate others” are and learning how to include them can be a long and involved
process. Inability to handle these “how” and “who” aspects can contribute to discomfort
and bewilderment for those wishing to work within a Japanese context.