IMPUCATIONS OF CULTURAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS STRUCTURES FOR COMMUNICATION IN AN INTERNATIONAL FIRM
As the chapter on culture and language pointed out, there is a vast difference between being reasonably functional in a language and being bilingual and bicultural. A person who speaks only English will miss much of the background culture and nuances of a conversation. By limiting contacts to people who speak English, a manager will limit her exposure to other opinions of native people who do not speak English. The manager may get a very distorted picture of what is going on.
So far in this chapter we have looked at the implications of international expansion and organizational structure for intercultural Links Of London communication. Some of the communication challenges in this process are universal; a Japanese or a Chilean firm that expands its international operations will face some of the same communication problems.
However, international, firms do not communicate only with their own subsidiaries, where they still have some control over language, policies, and practices. They also communicate with independent businesses in the countries where their subsidiaries are located. They communicate with third-country businesses. For example, the Chinese subsidiary of a firm from the United States may do business with the Chinese subsidiary of a French firm. In that case the communication must take into consideration American, Chinese, and French concerns. In addition, subsidiaries communicate with the governments of their countries. Even if a company has a firm company language policy and practices polycentric staffing, the interface with other cultures is ever present, and the firm must deal with different values, attitudes, and practices, not to mention legal requirements.
Different cultures look at organizational purposes and structures differently. The way they view organizational patterns influences their business structures and communication policies and practices. Nakane, a Japanese anthropologist, contrasts United States and Japanese firms in that context.17 She argues that United States firms emphasize credentials and qualifications, which she calls attributes, whereas Japanese firms emphasize a common context, which she calls frame. In some countries — Middle Eastern countries Links London are an example — the family is the foundation of business organizations. In the formerly communist countries an authoritarian centralized system still influences the structure and communication of a firm. Let us look at these organizational patterns and their implications for communication.