A Facebook friend recommended to me Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers, a book I finished on a flight to Korea last week. This is the second of Gladwell’s books I have read and I enjoyed it just as much as the first, The Tipping Point. One part of Outliers, a discussion on Asian communication, seems to offer a piece in the puzzle I am trying to solve on how to be successful in Asia.
Western communication has what linguists call a “transmitter orientation”–that is, it is considered the responsibility of the speaker to communicate ideas clearly and unambiguously…But Korea, like many Asian countries, is receiver oriented. It is up to the listener to make sense of what is being said. [Emphasis from Gladwell.]
(Before I go further I want to point out something bothersome about this text. I often search for corroborating evidence for insightful claims like this. I spent about 15 minutes Googling for other articles on transmitter and receiver orientation. I found only a handful of unique articles–one had been reprinted on half a dozen websites–discussing the subject. All articles quoted Gladwell’s book, not other analysis. Without any supporting evidence of Gladwell’s claims that linguists use these terms, there is a possibility that Gladwell made this up.)
My first week in Singapore my manager cautioned me to be careful with my communication in Asia. He warned western directness and how this could be perceived by Asians as bossiness or even bullying. He suggested that I work on my indirect communication skills. And after reading this section of Outliers, I can reconcile my manager’s suggestions with linguistics.
In receiver orientation the speaker need only say enough information to to suggest that something important needs to be conveyed. It is the receiver (the listener) that must comprehend the suggestion and deduce the subject or ask more information to clearly understand the message. This requires skills of indirection by the speakers and concentration by listeners. Skills that I must develop while here.
In transmitter orientation the speaker is required to unambiguously explain his message. Any lack of clarity is the fault of the transmitter (the speaker). This means transmitter oriented languages like English favor speakers that are direct, clear, and articulate. Asian languages value speakers that are subtle, nuanced, and clever.
These two approaches can cause problems when speakers from each orientation meet. A direct speaker from the west will be seen as ignoring the subtlety of communication by issuing bold directives that may be inappropriate for the relationship. An indirect speaker from the east may circle around a subject with an oblivious western listener missing cues that suggest a larger message.
The most obvious case of orientation mismatch I have seen occurs in my engagements with my Japanese colleagues and customers. From an American perspective, it can be a challenge to understand the real message embedded in a Japanese person’s speech. For instance, the Japanese rarely say ‘no’ but instead suggest difficulties that should be read as the clearest form of the negative. Similarly, they will often decline offers of politeness with the expectation that the speaker insist so they can eventually comply. This means a Japanese listener’s first response to a question is usually vague to a western speaker. The speaker/questioner must try other approaches to glean the real answer.
I just finished a two-week trip through China with a 24-hour stopover in Korea. I am heading back to China next week and finishing up the week in Tokyo. My new ears are straining for examples of this type of communication. Next time you see me face-to-face you may want to ask me how my adventures in Asian communication are progressing.
Hi Scott,
That’s an interesting take on differences in culture and communication.
Like you I am trying to learn to understand the differences of communication, language and culture, but from a country close by to yours, Thailand.
I’m not sure it is that easy as dividing between transmitter and receiver oriented as that seems to completely disregard the whole differences in culture and language.
First off there is a whole culture here built around status. Like how younger people are supposed to communicate when meeting older people. Disputing something that an older persons states is usually seen as being very impolite.
By definition foreigners seem to get the “older person” status.
Then there’s the “loosing face” politics, where in Western countries it is not seen as being silly if someone is getting emotional in his discussion, in asia that is not done.
Saying “No” is also not very polite in many cases.
In western society saying “Yes” is normally a commitment to doing something. Over here it just means “I understand”.. and they might say that even when they don’t understand you at all, just to be polite….
Can only speak for thailand, but I think that “yes” is being used quite oftenly here as a replacement for “krap”/”ka” and only the locals who get in touch with westerners know that yes can mean “commitment” to do something you said yes to.
—
Wil
That’s pretty fascinating, Wil. The saving face thing is of course a common discussion among westerners. But I still think there is a big part of it I do not understand. I quickly picked up how important it was not to disagree with people publicly. Or at least do so very cleverly. And definitely there is this additional element about the use of emotion. But I still feel that there is a hidden subtext I am missing. I am thankful, as you point out, that westerners get a pass with some behaviors.