In an organization with employees coming from many different cultures, miscommunication is an ever-present possibility. Most of such misunderstandings can be solved and indeed is one of the sources of a rich and stimulating working environment. But occasionally interpersonal or departmental conflicts can deepen, resulting in harassment charges or an ‘us’ vs ‘them’ dynamic.
1.1. Language and moral code
Culture is a framework for interpreting the behavior and intentionality of others and perceptions of self. Each person is born into at least one culture, that of the parents (sometimes two cultures when each parent is from a different culture), and may over his or her life-time live in other cultures. The two main ingredients of culture are: language and a moral code. Language is a symbolic system with metaphors aimed at communicating personal and social events. A moral code is a guide to what is right or wrong behavior and how can that be influenced, corrected or punished. The Sapir-Whorff hypothesis holds that language influences the way we perceive reality, both outer, social reality as well as inner bodily and emotional reality.
Language socialization theory demonstrates that when children acquire a language, they learn a whole set of social practices along with it, such as: forms of polite or impolite address, including when and how to refer (or not) to oneself; turn-taking i.e. who speaks when; what can or cannot be said to whom; what response can you expect and how to interpret that response; norms about framing a topic; norms about physical and social distance between people; how to show respect or disrespect; when to be silent. Often enough, when adults learn a new language, the socialization part is neglected or overlooked. This can be a source of many misperceptions when people communicate in foreign language, irrespective of how fluent they may feel in speaking it.
One can assume that in an international organization most people have some tacit understanding of how to deal with people from other cultures, if only because the common language is rarely the first language of any of the employees. Those employees that come from the most distant places, culturally speaking, in their journey to a position in the ICC will have negotiated the most “cultural crossings”. So, if one were to look at the Court population in the usual inverted U shape, one would see at the left side cultural novices: those in their first foreign posting; in the largest middle section, people who have some reasonable, working understanding about cultural differences; and one the right side very experienced cultural nomads.
1.2. Cultural awareness vs. reductionist thinking
It is the middle group that paradoxically is the most at risk for conflicts. First, while they may be quite sensitive to cultural differences, they see most of that difference in the other, being unaware or having become unaware of their own cultural norms and assumptions. This based on a natural, evolutionary – biologically/neurologically-meditated – process of abstraction or generalization that we call ‘learning’. For example, one or several culturally complex interactions with a French person, for instance, may lead us to think eventually, Oh, that’s so French (or Latin American, or Middle Eastern, or . . .). Such assumptions can be a social lubricant, allowing the other his or her own norms of behavior.
But in interpersonal conflicts, such assumptions can become narrow, concrete, and reductionist, seeing the other person not as ‘so French’ but as only the set of behaviors and characteristics associated (in the eye of the beholder) with being French. If that happens, the other person becomes the exponent of his or her culture, and no longer a ‘subject’ as we consider ourselves to be, but an object.
A subject can be assumed to have a whole range of personal intentions and motivations in addition to the cultural ones, related to her being a woman, for instance; or having a certain educational background or set of experiences; or holding the perspective of her job or profession (a judge; a doctor; a translator; a person charged with security concerns); or being a particular age; or whether or not he/she is overworked, worried about a sick child, a distant parent, a conflict with a spouse or partner. An object is more like a robot, with of a limited range of stereotypical behaviors: this input will trigger that behavioral-emotional output, as in ‘well, you know, people from (‘that’ culture) are very hot-headed or less precise or more interested in getting along than in getting things done’.
1.3. Perpetrator-victim dynamics in power or hierarchical situations.
Most staff conflicts have a hierarchical element, which means there is a contested power position. Whenever there is power at play, almost always the discourse involves ‘a do-er and a done-to’ dynamic. This is very clear in cases that allege harassment. The core and yet always surprising quality of a perpetrator-victim discourse is that both sides will seek and tenaciously cling to the victim position.
In international organizations there is a high probability that the parties in a conflict are from different cultural backgrounds. Even if that is not so, it might be very useful to frame it as having cultural conflict elements in it, because that takes it out of the purely personal (psychological; emotional; right/wrong; good/bad): the cultural frame creates a ‘third’ position, a space for self- reflection and for seeing the other as a full person, with a history and intentionality.
2. Psychosomatic issues
From the recently-founded and rapidly growing field of affective neuroscience we learn that emotional core of each person is the source of intention and motivation of human behavior, and that cognitive decision-making takes its cue from emotions, instead of the other way around.
Emotions pre-date human nature and have an evolutionary survival function. The fight or flight response to fear is the most well-known of this. But there are others: anger as a sign that personal boundaries are perceived as being crossed; the innate need to care for others, and to have them care for us; the instinctive trigger for active, rather than passive behavior; or even a basic need for play, for non-directive behavior as a way of exploring and rehearsing new ways of responding to self and other. Under optimal circumstances, arousal of any one of these emotions triggers behavior to satisfy it, after which homeostasis returns.
2.1. Stress induced by cultural misinterpretation of behavioral response.
If the behavioral response is misinterpreted by the environment, the arousal will continue. Too long of an arousal will set in motion a cascade of stress reactions, which, when they become chronic, may result in somatic illnesses. The affective neuroscience framework is beginning to clarify what we have long known as the mind-body interaction. There is a history of clinical discoveries about the interaction between emotions and various kinds of pathologies, for instance the relationship between depression and anxiety disorders and coronary heart disease; or the repeated findings that people with cancer live significantly longer if they also engage is psychotherapy; or group therapy as essential to overcoming addictions.
How and when individuals can act on the basic emotions is regulated by cultural norms. Take anger again: openly disagreeing with someone is allowed or even encouraged in some cultures, while it is not done or frowned upon in others. Because anger is a basic emotion, those cultures that discourage open expression of anger will have other culturally allowed behavior patterns of showing anger, such withdrawal for instance. When two people from the same culture interact, they can usually interpret the behavior accurately and come to some sort of resolution. But when the motivations are misinterpreted, misunderstandings can accumulate into a deeper personal conflict.
2.2. Adaptation and over-adaptation
One of the well-known but under-appreciated behavioral consequences of a stress reaction is an attempt to regulate the emotions by adapting to the demands of the environment. In the short run that can be a necessary correction to behavior, but in the long run a person will find him or herself only in reactive mode, unable to act in his or her own interest. This is known as over-adaptation, and results in systemic exhaustion. Too much adaptive behavior can also disorient or irritate managers or co-workers because they expect each person to take initiative and responsibility for his or own actions. That can issue in a downward spiral where a person feels she or he is working harder and harder with increasingly less appreciation. In such a context, the possibility for cultural miscommunication is rife.