Paradox Framing

I would like to elaborate here on the role of paradox in understanding the dimensions of intercultural communication and how it can lead to both conflict creation and conflict reso­lution.

The paradox of knowing is the core and foundational paradox to manage because it is about understanding self and other. We need to understand others and ourselves in order to know the potential impact we have on them. An example of this might be a manager con­sidering staff career development who oper­ates from a cultural orientation that providing for staff to take on responsibilities that allow for more autonomy is a good way to mentor and develop them. If there are staff members who consider being mentored in their roles differently, in that they do not take on more responsibilities until they are promoted into that role with the appropriate title, there can be intercultural conflict. Both parties may have good intentions but hold different assumptions about what it means to be a good manager, good staff member, and how career development should take place.

The p aradox of focus, which is the con­tinuum reflecting I- and we-centric orienta­tions, has been one of the more researched dimensions of intercultural communication as Ting-Toomey (2010) explores in her research. There are constant tensions in team or group settings, as for example, in an organizational context in which there is a predominance of team-based work, there are sets of assump­tions that accompany how rewards and recog­nition should be assigned. We-centric cultural orientations may defer to the team being recognized and rewarded, whereas in I-centric cultures, the team and the leading individual are rewarded. In both team situations, it is known among the team members how much and in what ways each individual contrib­uted, yet it is unspoken in we-centric cultural orientations and explicitly acknowledged in I-centric cultural orientations. The goal is to develop sensitivity to how and when to reward so that more good performance can result. The manner in which rewards are given can be raised during a performance review.

The paradox of communication is probably one of the most complex paradoxes. There are so many nuances in communication; even when fluent in a second or third language, it is not always easy to master the sensitivity to appropriate language use that is culturally and contextually shaped. In a recent workshop I was conducting, which had participants from a variety of cultures, there was a long process in deciding how the group should address the task at hand. In fact, even the process about the process had a range of expectations from the facilitator should decide, to the leader should decide, to we collectively give voice and decide.

The fourth, p aradox of action, addresses the continuum of acting and reflecting. Cultures with an emphasis on reflecting find contradictions to the pace of business in the global economy of today. This has an impact on the process of how teams come together, create action plans, and conduct after action reviews. There is a need for risk assessment, as there are some who have low adversity toward risk and want to plunge forward, while others want to spend more time in getting it right to minimize errors. The process of trial and error works more favorably in cultures such as the United States, while in Japan, the process leading up to a decision on a course of action is much longer in duration. This has been a source of contention with some U.S. and Japanese companies doing business together. The U.S. companies want to execute an action in a shorter time frame than their Japanese counterparts and both feel frustration, with one side being perceived as careless and the other overly cautious.

The fifth and final paradox is that of paradox of response, which refers to the dimension of time. This is an obvious source of intercultural conflict as the impact of dif­ference in time is easily and frequently experi­enced. When meetings are scheduled for 2:00, there are various understandings of what this means.

We can see that there are many dimen­sions to consider in intercultural conflict, and while it adds to the richness of the diversity of how we think, feel, and act, it can also be overwhelming in trying to determine how to intercede (Fisher-Yoshida, 2005). Using reflective processes as a way to review what worked well and to be mindful about how to engage in going forward is a useful activ­ity in addressing these paradoxes. The more we prepare for these occurrences, the more comfortable and productive we can be, so we turn those moments of cultural awkward­ness into moments of deep cultural sensitivity through being able to reflect while we are in the moment. (There is more on reflection later on in the Transforming Communication section.) Following is an approach that takes a particular communication perspective that may be useful in managing the five paradoxes as they are applied to intercultural communi­cation and conflict.