Intercultural Communication Trainingin JapanAlan Goldman

Arizona State University

During 1984-1985 I lived and worked in Tokyo, fapan, as an interculturaltrainer ami consultant for Japanese corporations. All ojmy contracting corporationsshared an understanding of the limitations of English language training and theneed for intercultural communication instruction as a key to facilitating improvedU.S.-Japanese corporate communication.

Corporations requested briefings and instruction in public speaking, nonverbalcommunication, small group communication, business meetings, social communica-tion, paralanguage, U.S. organizational-leadership-decision making. Japaneseclients solicited specific behavioral analysis of how Americans utilized Fnglish lan-guage in various communication contexts, how this differed from Japanese communi-cation in English, and how the differences could be better understood and bridged.My personal laboratory extended Jar beyond the boundaries of Nissan, fVC, Amada,Sumitomo, and TaiSei, and into the real training grounds oJJapanese cafes, restau-rants, trains, families, homes, and streets.

As an intercultural communication consultant and trainer in Tokyo,1984-1985, I encountered some of the cultural surprises, challenges andfrustrations addressed by Sam Dudley in his recent article, "TeachingSpeech in Japan (Dudley, 1988)." Working within the Tokyo corporateworld I found that many English teaching companies had singled out inter-cultural communication as an upcoming subject matter in response to thecommunication problems experienced by Japanese English speakers whointeract with Americans. In this essay I draw upon my Japanese experiencefor appreciating the emerging role of intercultural communication trainingin Japanese corporations. Moreover, I advocate the need for more intercul-tural communication training on this side of the Pacific.

An American Stranger Arrives

Upon my first arrival in Tokyo in April of 1984,1 encountered Tokyo'sNarita Airport, the color-coded Japanese train system, Japanese cabs popu-lated by drivers with white gloves and automatic doors swinging open, agourmet sushi restaurant (with a drunk businessman who gloatingly atetiny, live fish), and urinals built into floor level. 1, like Dudley, was illiterateupon arrival and could not speak or read Japanese. Graciously guided bya Japanese friend from Boulder, Colorado, I struggled with bank transac-

8 The Florida Communication Journal XVII, 2, 1989

Jntercultural Communication Training 9

tions, finding my way on the trains into and out of Shinjuku station (biggestof downtown Tokyo stations), asking directions, renting an apartment,securing telephone and utilities services, and visiting a dentist due to atooth chipped on the airliner en-route to Tokyo.

During my first solo excursions into Japanese restaurants I felt like asix year old, dragging the smiling restaurant owners out to the front win-dow displays, and pointing toward the plastic simulations of the "food set"that I wished to order. I sat as a stranger in restaurants and cafes, avidlystudying Japanese language and culture, rereading a 1975 U.S.-Japanesecommunication text by Dean Barnlund of San Francisco State University,and hardly feeling as if I were the great American communicator with aPh.D. in the discipline.

In retrospect, I am so fortunate that I struggled in those early weeks,for I had to directly address numerous intercultural issues, as my com-munication was largely reduced to a meticulous decoding of Japanese non-verbal behavior. I carefully listened to the voice of Japanese speakers, thenuances of some thirty or more paralanguage variables (I compiled myown lists), and the infinite subtieties and combinations of Japanese pro-xemics and kinesics. I asked so many questions of myself, revisted the coretheories and postulates of Western communication, and was thrust into therole of an unlikely anthropologist. I echo the words of Professor Dudleywhen I state that "all of these questions—and many more—occur to youbefore you even get to the classroom."

To compound matters, I found my cultural sensibilities even furtheroverwhelmed when I entered the corporate classrooms and training cen-ters of Nissan, Sumitomo, Japan Victor Corporation, Tokyo Electron Ltd.,Nippon Mining, Tai Sei, Amada, and Nikkiso Medical. Thrilled with theprospects of speaking English with Japanese CEO's, managers, executives,and line workers, I then stumbled head first into the realities and com-plexities of intercultural communication: U.S. and Japan.

From Bilingual Education to Intercultural CommunicationMy mission in Tokyo was both to develop an intercultural communica-

tion training prototype and to meet the individualized consulting and train-ing needs of corporate clients. Many Japanese English schools and trainingcenters (Berlitz, Interac) were on the brink of developing interculturalprograms in the mid-1980's as a follow up to in-house conversational Eng-lish classes for corporate officers.

After establishing a trainer and program developer relationship withan international training company, I was intent upon creating a bridgefrom English training to intercultural training. My training company andcorporate clients collectively recognized that a knowledge of written and con-versational Fnglish was insujficient for Japanese communication needs with Amer-icans. All demanded training in the cultural components of communication

10 The Florida Communication Journal

that eluded Japanese English speakers. Corporate clients requested brief-ings in paralanguage, kinesics, proxemics, and the overall subject matterof nonverbal communication. Japanese executives wanted botb an in-depthunderstanding of American communicative patterns and behaviors as wellas pragmatics for use in the rigors of business and social meetings, fordelivering speeches before live audiences and the t.v. camera, and forholding press conferences with American journalists.

Drawing upon my fresh blunders through everyday Japanese life, Iwalked several brilliant CEO's through tbe rudiments of American com-municative behavior. Being quite formal and controlled in their verbal andnonverbal communication (intraculturally), Japanese leaders desiredexplicit play-by-plays of such events as these: communicative behaviorsinvolved in the exchange of calling cards and appropriate greetings, theinitiation of conversations, suitable topics for conversations, taboo conver-sational topics, addressing persons of lower to higher status, deciding onturn-taking, turn-yielding and leave-taking behaviors in dyads and smallgroups, interruptions at business meetings, appropriateness of direct andindirect styles of verbal communication, decision-making and leadershipat negotiating tables, establishing short vs. long term relations with Amer-icans, and gender communication.

Nissan Corporation Managerial TrainingIn a training/consulting intensive conducted at a state-of-the-art Nissan

Corporation facility in Tokyo in May, 1985, I was particularly impressedwith the growing sophistication of my Japanese clients in their quest forintercultural communication with Americans. Approximately eight middleand upper managers were soon to depart for various M.B.A. programs inthe United States, being specifically groomed for future management slotsin Japanese subsidiaries. My assignment was quite diverse, and I wasprimarily required to meet the needs and requests of the trainees, whateverthose might be.

My "future Japanese managers of America" insisted upon a crash pro-gram preparing them for preventative communication. They asked fortraining in predicting and sidestepping communication conflicts withAmericans. I spent an initial few hours on the workings of AmericanM.B.A programs and the usual intercultural diet of training: cultural shockupon arriving in the U.S., and reverse cultural shock upon returning toJapan. Next I focused upon their concern with the grit of business meetings.

Several men began the battery of requests by assuring everyone in theroom that they needed a cataloging of typical Japanese and Americancommunicative behaviors within organizations. And they further assumedthat the uncovering of vast, significant differences between American andJapanese communicative behavior would further necessitate strategies forbridging or overcoming differences.

Intercultural Communication Training 11

Their demands eventually led me to use Okabe's theory of Japanese-American intercultural communication (Okabe, 1983). Almost in directanswer to the needs expressed by the Nissan managers, Okabe contrastedstyles of communication and came up with a "Z-theory of communication,"whereby the goal was to negotiate blends, or amalgams of J-type communi-cation (Japanese) and A-type communication (American).

Working with the "Z-theory" I proposed hybrid forms of communica-tion, as communication itself was negotiated at the negotiating table. Once theJapanese managers were well versed in contrasting American and Japanesecommunicative styles and behaviors, I proposed that they experiment withthe following strategies, enroute to negotiating an intercultural hybrid:

1. Observe communication differences at the negotiating table wheninteracting with Americans, constantly asking yourself how these differ-ences can be addressed.

2. Partake in the role of a "humble anthropologist" in bringing forthyour perceptions of contrasting styles of American and Japanese communi-cation, voicing significant observations at strategic times, while in the act ofnegotiating (or prior to, or following negotiations).

3. "Play" with American approaches to communicating, and attempt toincorporate small degrees of these behaviors, blended with your naturalJapanese style: i.e., act 10%-50% more direct, to-the-point, confrontative,assertive, verbose, overtly expressive.

4. Invite Americans at the negotiating table to experiment with vari-ations of Japanese style communication, verbally and non-verbally, alsoaspiring to a 10%-50% blend.

5. Consider inviting an intercultural communication consultant to yourJapanese-American negotiating table, as a silent observer and analyst readyto discuss the quality of communication, after the meeting, with interestedparties from both groups.

6. Hold a pre-business meeting-training-group in intercultural com-munication, within your own organization, or in conjunction with repre-sentatives of the American organization.

7. Employ video taping as a means for investigating strengths, weaknes-ses, and conflicts (actual and potential); this can be done as part of anoverall consulting package.

A Campaign Approach to U.S.-Japanese CorporateNegotiating: "Nemawashi" and "Ringi"

As part of the May intercultural training intensive, I engaged the Nis-san managers in numerous role-plays and simulations of Japanese-Amer-ican negotiations. They role-played both Japanese and Americans. "Amer-icans" accused Japanese of not getting to the point and avoiding timely

12 The Florida Communication Journal

decision-making at the negotiation table. Japanese learned to explain asser-tively the cultural reasons behind their apprehension about a clear yes orno. They pointed toward the Japanese propensity for long-term decision-making that involved may organizational members, and a cultural tendencytoward an indirect negotiation.

"Americans" at our simulations struggled for clarity, while Japaneseintroduced them to the fine art of ambiguity. The thresholds of simulatedtragedies led to highly creative, assertive solutions to communication prob-lems. Ethnocentrism was exposed at every opportunity, and the Japanesemanagers became increasingly comfortable with directly explainingJapanese styles of communication, looking "Americans" directly in the eye,negotiating for not relinquishing their turn speaking, and instructing allpresent at the table that they did not speak English as rapidly, fluendy, orwith the confidence that the Americans were used to. As a result, theJapanese found solutions to their fears of being interrupted by Americans,and being told that they were slippery, evasive, and not straight-forward.

I pushed for more individualized expression, and urged Japanese man-agers to rethink their one-spokesman-for-the-group approach to smallgroup communication. This led to a gradual speaking up of non-spokes-man members of the Japanese team, and a deeper appreciation for theAmerican bewilderment with Japanese "rules" at small group meetings. Inreturn (in the spirit of a Z-communication-amalgam), the Nissan groupproposed that "American" managers become better versed in the com-municative implications of their "nemawashi" and "ringi" systems of or-ganizational/corporate interaction, and its direct relationship to decision-making at the negotiating table.

Japanese managers carefully instructed the "American" players in themuch slower process of "root binding" or "nemawashi," whereby manyJapanese members of an organization are included in a drawn-out, time-consuming decision-making process. Part ofthat process may be the "ringi"system, as individuals attach their approval to policy, change, or decisionsby affixing their seals to written/printed documents in prescribed fashions:I. upright, for approval; 2. upside down, for disapproval; and 3. sidewaysfor a "maybe."

Many responses are collected and the petition or proposal is recircu-lated many times until there is full and complete approval. Modificationsare made as feedback is privately considered, various dyads discuss prob-lems orally. What evolves is a firm, complete cohesiveness by the time thatnegotiators step to the table. This process of root-binding may also takeplace following negotiations with Americans, and form a basis for the less-than-timely approach to decision-making at the table. The Nissan mana-gers stated that it was crucial for American corporate negotiators to beaware of this lengthy Japanese process, and even to enter into it, if theyso desired. The result would be a kind oï campaign approach to intercultural

Intercultural Communication Training 13

communication at the negotiating table, as Americans would be asked tono longer view business meetings with Japanese as a "one-shot," instantane-ous process. By entering into many telephone conversations and privatemeetings with individual members of a Japanese corporation, prior-to,during, and following group negotiations, Americans would somewhatenter into the behind-the-scenes "nemawashi" and "ringi" systems. Muchintercultural communication would take place prior to the actual meeting.Differences could be articulated, anticipated, and hopefully, ironed out,with much face saving. By exploring points of contention outside of thepublic group meeting, the American appetite for confrontation and potential"face-losing" displays could be substantially avoided. And most of all, thenegotiating process is reconceptualized into a longer time frame with lessstress upon results to be gained during a single meeting of Japanese andAmericans.

The Intercultural Challenge for theAmerican Corporation

The exciting climate of intercultural learning in Tokyo, typified by theNissan managers, led to my subsequent discovery that cultural training isnot equally pursued by multinational American corporations. Americancorporations tend to view intercultural communication as a kind of foot-note, a luxury, a "fluff in the light of pressing economic, political, andorganizational concerns (Goldman, 1988). I am convinced that intercul-tural communication is at the heart and soul of our complex relationshipwith Japan, and is one of the most concrete weapons against protectionism,ethnocentrism, and prejudice on both sides of the Pacific.

American corporations need to recall that much of the interculturaldialogue has been rendered possible by the wholesale Japanese priority forlearning English. With the luxury of communicating with the Japanese inour native tongue, it surely is reasonable that Americans embark upon amore comprehensive study of Japanese culture and comnumicatix e be-havior. I particularly call upon communication colleagues to reconcep-tualize various communication theories, principles, and levels of analvsis.from the vantage point of both intercultural coniniunication and U.S.-Japanese communication in our English language.

It seems to me that many of our most cherished, routine asstnnptionsabout public speaking, intrapersonal and interpersonal communication,small group and organizational communication, are substantiallv ethnocen-tric or Western in their conception and bias. Interctiltnrallv speaking, itmay be time to rethink what constitutes the successful conmuinicator orsuccessful communication, and adapt our teaching to the pressing intercul-tural arena. For it is qtiite a dilemma when the great .American com-municator finds that his/her speaking style flonndeis and fails beU>re a

14 The Florida Communication Journal

Japanese English-speaking audience. Charisma, eloquence, logic, arrange-ment of ideas, credibility, compliance-gaining attempts may be more cul-turally distinct than American corporations realize.

Unlike the American baseball player, the American public speaker andnegotiator may not hit a home run before a group of potential Japaneseinvestors. With staggering amounts of money on the line and a delicatetrade balance on a tether, I hope our teams will turn increasingly towardintercultural communication as a logical course of action. It is an alternativeto American corporate failures and an answer to Japanese study of Amer-ican communicative behaviors.

References

Barnlund, D., (1975) Public and private self in Japan and United States, Tokyo: Simul Press.Dudley, S., (1988) Teaching speech in Japan. The Florida Communication Journal, 16, 2, 1-4.Goldman, A., (1988) For Japanese only: intercultural communication with Americans, Tokyo: The

Japan Times.Okabe, R., (1983) Cultural assumptions of east and west: Japan and the United States. In W.

B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: current perspectives, (pp. 21-44). Be-verly Hills: Sage.