Cognitive barriers in cross-cultural communication
Culture has been defined in many ways. Geert Hofstede defines it as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others.” To break it down to my students in a simpler way, I normally say that it is the mix of the beliefs, social habits, symbols, rituals and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group/sub-group; in a nutshell, it is the life-style shared by people in place or time.
When people from different places come together, there is always going to be certain friction, which is natural given the fact that some of those beliefs, customs or habits will not match each other. Through my career working in an intercultural environment, I have observed an elephant in the room that not everybody would be able to point out. Whenever there is a conflict between different cultures, an immediate reaction to something that we do not like, or agree, is commonly justified by somebody’s culture. A simple, and sometimes innocent reaction, that ends up creating distance among people.
A simple mistake for a complex matter.
Let’s take as an example the following situation:
- (Spanish) Hey, would you like to meet for a coffee?
- (German) Of course, it sounds interesting.
- (Spanish) Shall we meet this afternoon at 18:00?
- (German) Let me check my agenda. I have some time in three weeks, on the first Thursday of the month at 12:00. Does that work for you?
- (Spanish) In three weeks? You are so German. We do not need to make an appointment to meet for a coffee.
Regardless of the time orientation in the Spanish and German culture, according to Hofstede, there is a conflict to be resolved in this dialogue. This is a typical scenario that I have witnessed and lived myself. When I encountered such a different mindset for the first time, almost ten years ago, I thought: oh dear, he is so German. And that made sense: German culture is known for being structured, organised and have a linear perception of time, very different to what I was used to in Spain. However, I was making a mistake that was creating distance between us: By doing that, I am putting that person in a box of “you are German”, then assume what the reason of not meeting earlier was and I could potentially stop questioning the facts that lead towards that decision. Long-story-short: I could end up creating a persona based on cultural stereotypes (and prejudices) and not give a chance to know the person behind.
“Is it cultural or is it personal?”
I ask this question as an exercise to my students of Intercultural Management with the focus on the mind to challenge them with the dilemma: why does a person act in a specific way to a determined situation? It helps students take a step back, reflect and question simple actions and thoughts encountered on a daily basis. It might seem simple at first, but it becomes quite challenging trying to de-code if certain actions and decisions that we take everyday are, in fact, cultural-based or personal-related. This exercise fosters understanding, comprehension, empathy; it develops self-reflection and is able to expand the boundaries of our understanding. It is important to grow awareness of why we behave in a certain way and how we do it. How much culture can influence our identity and what are the personal decisions that we make along the way? By understanding how culture influences a person and what are their personal decisions, we are one step closer to connect with different people, one step closed to reach cross-cultural proficiency.
But, why does this happen? Why do we tend to have cognitive biases and take culture as the one to blame when facing uncertainty? Many cognitive biases affect people and their everyday actions, like confirmation bias and overconfidence. But the most important, and troubling, error that professionals tend to make in their thinking may be the fundamental attribution error (Healy, 2017).
Fundamental attribution error (correspondence bias).
FAE (its acronym), which means correspondence bias, is the answer to that dilemma. FAE is the tendency to explain (and justifying) behaviours on personality instead of facts or objective circumstances.
We analyse and evaluate others on personality but, when it comes to ourselves, we do it based on the situation.
- “Garcia was late to the meeting, he is irresponsible.”
- “I was late for the meeting; it was a bad morning.”
If we take this type of reasoning with us, it will translate into a conflict between different cultures:
- “Schmidt never wants to meet me ad-hoc to have a coffee. He always wants to schedule it for three weeks in advance. He obviously does not want to meet me and does not have the courage to tell me. What a fake person.”
- “Garcia does not look me in the eye when I propose meeting him in three weeks time. He is not trustworthy or respectful. I made time for him and he does not appreciate it.”
Mundane and common scenarios like this are often the trigger for major conflicts over time. Simple misunderstandings that can be tackled down by developing intercultural sensitivity. In a rapid-expanding global world, there is an urgent need to identify barriers and setbacks while communicating with other people. We are not supposed to know all the differences, to be able to forecast all different behaviours; but we can raise our awareness on how to react when confronted with something that does not seem initially positive or familiar.
How to avoid fundamental attribution error.
FAE is so prevalent in human behaviour because it is rooted in psychology. This implies the complexity of trying to completely overcome it. Harvard Business School points out gratitude as a powerful tool. Whenever we see something “bad” on someone, something that does not match our set of values and clashes with the ethics of our culture, we need to find a way to balance that out. It is possible by making a list of five positive qualities the person also exhibits. This will help balance out our perspective and can help get a holistic overview of that person instead of focusing on that single trait.
Developing emotional intelligence is another way to go. This is part of my goal by bringing the debate to class with what is personal and what is cultural. With this exercise, we practice self-awareness, empathy, self-regulation, and other methods of becoming more objective in the service of one’s long-term interests and the interests of others.
There are several different tools and models that can be of huge help, guiding us and shedding some light on our way: Hofstede cultural dimensions and Troompenars dimensions of culture are some of the tools that can help us breakdown culture in a number of layers and find how different countries contrast side-to-side. Their models will be able to give us a direction when we are unable to identify or comprehend specific behaviours. By understanding why we reach the first step towards effective communication.
Fundamental attribution error is impossible to overcome completely.
It does not mean that we shall give up. A combination of self-awareness and using appropriate tools and strategies can help you become more interculturally sensitive and proficient. As a matter of fact, being able to acknowledge cognitive biases like this one and make the conscious effort to limit their effects is an essential component of becoming an international professional.
What is your experience with FAE? Have you ever been consciously aware of being biased while meeting other people? What have you observed? I am curious to get to know your insights on this topic.
