Communication is central to organisational sensemaking. It “involves turning circumstances into a situation that is comprehended explicitly in words and that serves as a springboard into action” (Weick, et al., 2005, p. 409). Therefore, competence in communication is important in the process of sensemaking. Similarly, intercultural competence in intercultural communication is important to cultural sensemaking in intercultural contexts. Intercultural competence refers to “the appropriate and effective management of interaction between people who, to some degree or another, represent different or divergent affective, cognitive, and behavioural orientations to the world” (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 7). It can be seen from the definition of intercultural competence that obtaining intercultural competence is the target of cultural sensemaking, so cultural sensemaking provides an approach to develop intercultural competence. This subsection thus
attempts to illustrate the components which constitute intercultural competence and their possible influence on cultural sensemaking.
In the field of intercultural communication, several categories of models of intercultural competence have been developed (as summarized by Spitzberg and Changnon (2009)). However, I select a transformational model for my study because, despite having been developed for professional mobility (Glaser, et al., 2007), the model depicts intercultural communication in intercultural workplaces. This model (see Figure 2.3 below) lists seven components of intercultural competence people are expected to have in order to interact effectively in intercultural professional contexts when encountering cultural differences. The development of these components involves learning or unlearning certain knowledge and values and entails attitudinal and behavioural change.
Figure 2.3 The Development of Intercultural Competence: A Transformational Model (Glaser, et al., 2007, p. 17)
These seven components are awareness of the self and the other, communicating across cultures or inter-cultures, acquiring cultural knowledge (similar to the knowledge (savoir) in Byram’s (1997) model), sense-making, perspective-taking, relationship building, and social responsibility. More specifically, awareness of the self and the other refers “to getting to know oneself, reflecting upon one’s culture-bound upbringing and standpoint and analysing in depth one’s norms,
values, beliefs and behaviours”, which is perceived as “a starting point towards accepting, understanding and enjoying otherness” (Glaser, et al., 2007, p. 30). Cultural sensemaking is triggered by an unexpected event brought about by culturally different people. In interpreting culturally different behaviour, one is aware of the self and the other. From a personal perspective, the awareness of self means that “one’s perspective is rooted and therefore limited”, and knowing the self acts as a starting point to accept, understand, and enjoy otherness (Glaser, et al., 2007, p. 27). From the perspective of the other, finding out about the other calls for showing interest, curiosity and perseverance to truly understand the other, which is the foundation for the intercultural encounter (Glaser, et al., 2007). Communicating across culture consists of non-verbal communication, verbal communication and language awareness. In the process of cultural sensemaking, the actor makes full use of the resource of language to make sense of the unknown. Thus, the competence of verbal communication is essential. In addition, the appropriate use of non-verbal communication such as eye contact and body language is also helpful for others to understand what people want to express. Furthermore, language awareness refers to “the awareness of how speaking one or more languages or a particular language such as English is related to social/professional status” (Glaser, et al., 2007, p. 33). In multicultural contexts, people’s native language (e.g. Chinese) may influence the manner in which they learn another language (e.g. English) and the degree of competence they attain. The native or proficient speaker of the selected language may also convey power over non-native speakers of this language (Glaser, et al., 2007).
As for acquisition of cultural knowledge, it includes the acquisition of culture-general knowledge (possessing knowledge of the world) and culture-specific knowledge (possessing some culture-specific knowledge of the interlocutor) (Glaser, et al., 2007). Culture-general knowledge here is equivalent to savoir (knowledge) in Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural communicative competence: knowledge of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction (p. 51). Rasmussen, Sieck, and Osland (2011) state that
culture-specific knowledge refers to that which enables a person to explain successfully and predict the behaviour of culturally different people in specific situations and enables the person to make sense of cultural behaviours that appear to be paradoxical. The latter is exactly what is needed in the process of cultural sensemaking. As stated previously, cultural sensemaking involves both the actor’s interpretation of an unexpected event and his/her subsequent reaction, and through it his/her cultural knowledge can be updated and skills can be practised.
Perspective taking is defined as the capacity to look at reality from different viewpoints. It involves at least five qualities: empathy, flexibility, decentering, open-mindedness and coping with ambiguity (Glaser, et al., 2007). Sensemaking, as a component of intercultural competence, is included in this model. It involves
savoir comprendre (skills of interpreting and relating), and savoir apprendre/ faire
(skills of discovering and interaction) in Byram’s (1997) model (Glaser, et al., 2007). In addition, it entails “identifying/perceiving and understanding prevalent values, beliefs and norms in a situation” (Glaser, et al., 2007, p. 35).
Although the model regards relationship building and social responsibility as the components of intercultural competence, these two concepts somehow are not discussed. Therefore, I plan to look at these in my study. Relationship building in the process of sensemaking is identified in Dao’s (2011) empirical research. It is possible to establish relationships in interpersonal interaction, especially in the Chinese context in which interpersonal relationships play a large role in social life. In addition, cultural sensemaking is triggered by individual awareness of the self and the other, and requires the sensemaker to make sense of the differences from the other’s perspective by recognising the cultural knowledge the actor holds and then reacting by using his or her communicative skills. In doing so, the relationship between the actor and the other may be established. However, the extent to which the relationship is established is subject to many factors, which I plan to explore in the current research.
To conclude, in this subsection I have explored the components of intercultural competence that could affect the process of cultural sensemaking by drawing on Glaser et al.’s (2007) model. In addition to this, the model connects sensemaking
with intercultural competence, although the authors appear to put more weight on the skill capability entailed in sensemaking and ignore other components involved, such as knowledge and attitudes. However, the above model does not reveal the relationships between sensemaking and other components of intercultural competence. Moreover, in the field of intercultural communication, this model serves mainly as a training tool to enable students or employees to improve intercultural competence (e.g. Mughan & O'Shea, 2010; Rasmussen, et al., 2011). Therefore, it is worth exploring how these components impact the process of cultural sensemaking and conversely how cultural sensemaking facilitates individuals’ development of intercultural competence in a real multicultural workplace.
So far, I have discussed social constructionism as the theoretical framework, cultural sensemaking as the analytical framework, and potential factors which could influence this process. Next, I turn to briefly look at some empirical studies of intercultural communication in organisations in China.