Interactions between North Americans and Japanese :
Considerations of Communication Style
The Summary

Communication style has a very big impact on the dynamics of face-to-face encounters, that is, whether a conversation proceeds smoothly or by fits and starts, whether both continually interrupt each other or are both able to talk simultaneously without interrupting and whether their style of listening match. Differences in ethnic background coupled with those of communication style probably increase chances that implicit unverbalized matters will be overlooked or misinterpreted. To be able to understand deeper and more sophisticated effects of style differences can take years. In exploring such differences of “the other”, one cannot help but come to understand the cultural factors that have shaped one’s own style. In the communication between Japanese and Non-Japanese there are intercultural communication blocks that have to be considered, which are, problems on direct and indirectness, individuality and groups view, decision making, and discussion.

Components of Communication Style According to some experts there are various things included in the components of communication style, such as: topics of discussions, favorite interaction forms -ritual, repartee, argument, and self disclosure- and involvement depth, as well as the channel people rely upon (Dean Barlund) ; behaviors –gesticulation, eye contact, speech and kinetic rhythm, and listening behavior- (Erickson) ; interruptions, pauses, laughter, inductive and deductive statements, and types of question ( E.S Johnson). However, in this discussion, there are three variables suggested as a core to explore communication style: (1) orientation to interaction, (2) code preference, and (3) interaction format. These are not to be understood as stereotype descriptions of all members of any cultural group but rather as stylistic preferences of the cultural group as a whole. Communication style orientations are anchored in cultural standards but allow for individual movement depending upon the situation and cultural constraints.

1. Orientation to Interaction North Americans Japanese
Locus of Self Individualistic Interpersonal
View of Reality Objective Subjective

The North American built the values of self-sufficiency and independence. It is important to acknowledge differences of experience, ability, and opinion which separate individuals and highlight who we are. Japanese are less anchored by an internally identified self-concept as by lines leading to friends, colleagues, and family. The orientation brought to North Americans was objectivity, emphasizing a belief in cause and effect in linear determinism. Validity and reliability are prerequisites of “solid” research; conclusions or action plans should follow clearly from premises and needs analyses. In contrast, Japanese have traditionally been more oriented toward a human relations (ningen kankei) reality: “In order to attain an end, whether social or nonsocial, the creation, maintenance, or manipulation of a relevant social relationship is a foremost and indispensable means.” Thus, in their style of communication Japanese preferred passive-withdrawing forms that allowed interpersonal accommodation with the target person, while the North Americans frequently chose more individualistic, active-aggressive forms of criticism and focused on the objective problem rather than the person. However, within the two cultural ideals presented, then there is evidence of change: North Americans are being criticized for extreme focus on self and urged to consider the rewards of more collective attitudes, while the Japanese are becoming aware that intergroup competition and intragroup divisiveness can be paralyzing; they begin to recognize the importance of being more objective in planning and problem solving.

2. Code Preference North Americans Japanese Verbal (and nonverbal) Nonverbal (and verbal)

For anyone whose identity emerges from being separate and unique differences between self and others are emphasized. Primers for effective communication warn against making assumptions about others’ needs or want and stress speaking about yourself. North American consciously separate fact, inference and judgment, and they suggest withholding judgment upon entering new culture. They are admonished not to fill in the meaning before checking it out. It is also assumed that only through detailed verbalization can one most concretely and accurately “check out” what the other means. In the other hand, Japanese prefer a style of communicating that appreciates and employs assumptions about the opinions and feelings of their compatriots. There is a vast difference between a primary emphasis upon verbalization or written forms and a primary emphasis upon what can be sensed, guessed at, and inferred from the total situation before verbalization. An impressive rather than expressive emphasis places high value on the person who can “hear one and understand ten.” Speaking is no longer considered a vice; the concept of enryo translates into a hesitancy to speak frankly and immediately and shows concern over being labeled thoughtless. When crossing cultural boundaries a common problem is the inability to distinguish between the literal and more figurative or ritualistic meanings of a phrase or behavior. While this is a universal problem, a newcomer to Japan is especially confronted with this issue because of the cultural emphasis on form. The inability to learn quickly about the forms and rituals of Japan by asking the right question and getting the right answer is in part the basis for perceptions that Japan is an ambiguous and mysterious culture. Being able to comprehend the interplay among significant situational variables and being able to assess how one fits into the overall situation is critical in creating successful face-to-face interactions with the Japanese.

3. Interaction Format North Americans Japanese Persuasive Harmonizing Quantitative Holistic Pragmatic Process-oriented

The persuasive function is highly emphasized for North Americans. If one can be shown the facts, the numbers, the details, or the direct correlation between cause and effect logically and objectively, he or she will accept the point. Resistance to the point can imply that the receiver is unreasonable, illogical, too emotional, or stubborn. As well as in satisfying conversation, it is felt that “two-way contrast is a point of departure.” All parties to a conversation are responsible for their own opinion; active give-and-take is expected. In the other hand, the Japanese concept of conversation includes an attitude of sharing, of “I start my sentence and you finish it” rather than “I finish my sentence and you say yours”. Japanese do, of course, interact in persuasive modes; traditionally, however, one is not persuaded solely by verbal skills or logical construction of an argument, rather, one can be brought over by another’s status and age, or by emotional, empathetic feeling that the situation or the relationship might call forth. For North Americans the ultimate purpose of communication is often pragmatic. Behavior accumulates and contributes to accomplishing an end result. Experience must be quantified so that the most expedient logical action can be taken. The ideal is to know exactly how much for exactly how long to accomplish exactly what. Evaluation, too, must be in the form of numbers, not feelings. However, what North Americans may quantify, Japanese may deal with as common sense. They would prefer an end-of-day discussion and then resolve as individuals and as a group to “do better” for tomorrow. The Japanese don’t put a percentage. The Japanese place emphasis on the process of doing something as well as on the product or end result. Events are not separated from the process or from the people involved. The variable of “interaction format” greatly influences the establishment and maintenance of relationships between Japanese and North Americans. It is important to realize that in Japan one rarely accomplishes anything by oneself. Although one person may carry the majority of responsibility, it is vital to continually involve others so that an overall feeling of group effort and achievement is shared. Determining who these “appropriate others” are and learning how to include them can be a long and involved process. Inability to handle these “how” and “who” aspects can contribute to discomfort and bewilderment for those wishing to work within a Japanese context.