When the author was traveling in the Middle East, one of the characteristics that stood out most for him was just how aggressive people communicate with one another to get anything done. When there is any sort of conflict, often there is a shouting match between the opposing parties, with little care for the noisy ruckus they are creating in the immediate surroundings. Interestingly, the passerby usually do not even bat an eye at the conflicts that are happening right next to them, happily ignoring the anger on the streets as they go about their daily business as if it is all peaceful and quiet.
The confrontational tactics of the Arabs, when used on foreigners they deal with, do not exactly inspire a sense of camaraderie. Many people are used to sugarcoating their sense of anger and frustration before indirectly letting the other side understand the displeasure with the current situation. They communicate in such indirect ways because they are more or less confident that after some prodding, the opposing side will recognize the difficulties of cooperating with the current terms. So both sides back down somewhat, a compromise is reached, and cooperation happily continues on without further conflicts.
People from confrontational cultures do not see things the same way. For them, the displeasure is something that must be vocally and outwardly expressed to the opposing party for the gravity of the displeasure to be understood. The opposing party, to be taken seriously, should and must shout back their displeasure in return in order to get their own points across. If compromises are to happen, it is something that is vocally discussed, haggled upon, and then finalized. Subtle signals never work, and indirect suggestions only signifies that the point being conveyed is not that important.
The problem happens when such confrontational people meet with non-confrontational people. In the face of continued aggressive shouting from the confrontational people, the non-confrontational, caring much about not fighting directly with the opposing party, are often forced to back down, retracting their own demands because they cannot outargue the confrontational. In the end, instead of a compromise suitable for both sides is reached, the confrontational tends to get all of their wishes granted at the expense of the non-confrontational people's interest.
For the confrontational, in their inability to read subtle signals of displeasure held by the non-confrontational, they are only capable of seeing the great victories they won at the negotiating table. But that great victory, perfectly beneficial in practice, is achieved by reducing the likelihood of long-term cooperation. The non-confrontational, seeing just how uncompromising the confrontational can be, is much less likely to work with them in the future should further needs arrive. Instead, they will gravitate toward people are capable of understanding non-confrontational way of negotiating and compromising to reach mutually beneficial results.
The dynamics of confrontational vs non-confrontational people has enormous implications for confrontational people living in an extremely non-confrontational Japan. Foreigners living here for the first time undoubtedly need much support from the Japanese in order to navigate the country's often cumbersome bureaucracies. It can be especially frustrating when said foreigners speaks minimal Japanese. Yet, when confrontational foreigners ask Japanese for support, they do so in a way that truly inspire ire among the Japanese supposedly tasked to help them.
In response, the Japanese will often delay certain tasks, using passive-aggressive ways to communicate their displeasure with the aggressive attitudes of the foreigners. Of course, the foreigners are incapable of understanding the displeasure being communicated. They only see delay in the things they need to be done, as a result of unnecessary inefficiencies. They express their anger about the inefficiencies with more aggressiveness, causing more passive-aggressive response. In the end, a vicious cycle causes endless anger to be met with complete silence, as Japanese staff protest ill-treatment by refusing to cooperate any further.
A simple cultural difference like how confrontational in matters of communication can perfectly ruin people's lives as they go about their daily business. The example above only helped to worsen Japanese's impression of confrontational cultures (some Arab, some African, some Indian) while making foreigners realize that despite whatever Japan has in terms of wealth and convenience, living here in the local society can be extremely frustrating in ways that, to them, are just mind-boggling. To resolve the issue, a much more robust structure of cross-cultural communication must be put in place, so that proper expectations, both among Japanese and foreigners, can be set for how they will behave toward each other normally.
The confrontational tactics of the Arabs, when used on foreigners they deal with, do not exactly inspire a sense of camaraderie. Many people are used to sugarcoating their sense of anger and frustration before indirectly letting the other side understand the displeasure with the current situation. They communicate in such indirect ways because they are more or less confident that after some prodding, the opposing side will recognize the difficulties of cooperating with the current terms. So both sides back down somewhat, a compromise is reached, and cooperation happily continues on without further conflicts.
People from confrontational cultures do not see things the same way. For them, the displeasure is something that must be vocally and outwardly expressed to the opposing party for the gravity of the displeasure to be understood. The opposing party, to be taken seriously, should and must shout back their displeasure in return in order to get their own points across. If compromises are to happen, it is something that is vocally discussed, haggled upon, and then finalized. Subtle signals never work, and indirect suggestions only signifies that the point being conveyed is not that important.
The problem happens when such confrontational people meet with non-confrontational people. In the face of continued aggressive shouting from the confrontational people, the non-confrontational, caring much about not fighting directly with the opposing party, are often forced to back down, retracting their own demands because they cannot outargue the confrontational. In the end, instead of a compromise suitable for both sides is reached, the confrontational tends to get all of their wishes granted at the expense of the non-confrontational people's interest.
For the confrontational, in their inability to read subtle signals of displeasure held by the non-confrontational, they are only capable of seeing the great victories they won at the negotiating table. But that great victory, perfectly beneficial in practice, is achieved by reducing the likelihood of long-term cooperation. The non-confrontational, seeing just how uncompromising the confrontational can be, is much less likely to work with them in the future should further needs arrive. Instead, they will gravitate toward people are capable of understanding non-confrontational way of negotiating and compromising to reach mutually beneficial results.
The dynamics of confrontational vs non-confrontational people has enormous implications for confrontational people living in an extremely non-confrontational Japan. Foreigners living here for the first time undoubtedly need much support from the Japanese in order to navigate the country's often cumbersome bureaucracies. It can be especially frustrating when said foreigners speaks minimal Japanese. Yet, when confrontational foreigners ask Japanese for support, they do so in a way that truly inspire ire among the Japanese supposedly tasked to help them.
In response, the Japanese will often delay certain tasks, using passive-aggressive ways to communicate their displeasure with the aggressive attitudes of the foreigners. Of course, the foreigners are incapable of understanding the displeasure being communicated. They only see delay in the things they need to be done, as a result of unnecessary inefficiencies. They express their anger about the inefficiencies with more aggressiveness, causing more passive-aggressive response. In the end, a vicious cycle causes endless anger to be met with complete silence, as Japanese staff protest ill-treatment by refusing to cooperate any further.
A simple cultural difference like how confrontational in matters of communication can perfectly ruin people's lives as they go about their daily business. The example above only helped to worsen Japanese's impression of confrontational cultures (some Arab, some African, some Indian) while making foreigners realize that despite whatever Japan has in terms of wealth and convenience, living here in the local society can be extremely frustrating in ways that, to them, are just mind-boggling. To resolve the issue, a much more robust structure of cross-cultural communication must be put in place, so that proper expectations, both among Japanese and foreigners, can be set for how they will behave toward each other normally.
Comments
Post a Comment