Write A 1400 To 1750 Word Paper That Demonstrates An 510561

Writea 1400 To 1750 Word Paper That Demonstrates An Example Of Poor

Write a 1,400- to 1,750-word paper that demonstrates an example of poor intercultural communication that significantly affected international commerce or foreign policy. Illustrate the lack of intercultural communication by clearly defining cultural patterns (theories, identity, and bias, for example) and communication devices (such as communication foundations and taxonomies) between two cultures. Select one or two intercultural communication theories needed to address and possibly resolve the example you have given. Include answers to the following questions in your paper: How do the two countries differ in their cultural patterns? How does communication play a role in each culture? What communication devices were used by both parties in this example? How did these devices work or not work in this particular intercultural communication example? What key intercultural communication theorist would you enlist to help solve this intercultural communication problem? Summarize the position of your selected theorist and explain how their ideas might apply to the situation. What approaches or theories may work to resolve your poor intercultural communication example? Utilize at least two external peer-reviewed sources. Format your assignment according to appropriate course level APA guidelines. It requires a title sheet and references page. Do NOT write this in question/answer format. Citations and references are required in all assignments. Submit your paper.

Paper For Above instruction

Intercultural communication is a complex field that examines how individuals from different cultural backgrounds exchange information, interpret messages, and understand each other within a given context. When this communication is impaired or ineffective, it can lead to significant consequences, especially in domains like international commerce and foreign policy. A notable example of poor intercultural communication that affected international relations is the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill crisis involving BP and the United States government. This incident exemplifies how cultural misunderstandings and ineffective communication devices can exacerbate tensions and hinder collaborative efforts, resulting in environmental and economic disasters that could have been mitigated through better intercultural understanding.

In this context, analyzing the cultural patterns of the involved parties reveals stark differences that contributed to the failure. The United States, with its emphasis on transparency, litigation, and environmental activism, exhibited a communication style rooted in individualism and legalism. Conversely, BP, a multinational corporation with a corporate culture emphasizing profit, operational secrecy, and hierarchical decision-making, reflected a more collectivist and hierarchical communication pattern. These cultural patterns influenced each party's perceptions, decision-making processes, and their communication styles. The U.S. government prioritized open disclosure and regulatory compliance, whereas BP focused on containment and minimizing liability—approaches that, when crossed, led to mistrust and miscommunication.

The communication devices, including formal reports, press releases, and meetings, worked differently across these cultural contexts. The U.S. authorities demanded transparency through detailed reports and public disclosures, which BP often perceived as accusatory or overly legalistic—further straining the relationship. BP’s internal communication relied heavily on corporate jargon and hierarchical directives, which failed to resonate with the more open and participative American public and governmental agencies. As a result, messages were often misinterpreted or dismissed, leading to delays in response efforts and increased public outrage. The inability to bridge these communication gaps showcased how cultural biases and differing expectations of communication channels can cause misalignments, ultimately hindering effective crisis management.

From an intercultural communication theory perspective, Edward T. Hall’s context cultures theory provides valuable insights into the shortcomings of the exchange. Hall’s distinction between high-context and low-context communication is particularly relevant. The American communication style tends toward low-context, emphasizing explicit, direct information, while BP’s internal culture leaned towards high-context communication, relying on implicit messages, shared understanding, and hierarchical cues. When these two modes clash, the risk of misunderstanding escalates, especially under high-stress situations like an environmental disaster. Hall’s theory suggests that Fostering awareness of these differences could have improved communication strategies in the crisis, allowing more effective information exchange and mutual understanding.

To address these issues, I would recommend applying Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), which emphasizes moving from ethnocentric stages—denial, defense, and minimization—to ethnorelative stages—acceptance, adaptation, and integration. The DMIS encourages individuals and organizations to recognize their cultural biases and develop intercultural competence. Applying this model might have enabled BP and U.S. agencies to better understand each other's cultural assumptions, expectations, and communication preferences, leading to more effective dialogue and collaboration during the crisis.

Using Bennett’s framework, organizations involved in international operations could implement intercultural training programs that foster empathy and adaptability, thus reducing misunderstandings and promoting more collaborative communication. Additionally, integrating Hall’s context communication awareness with Bennett’s sensitivity development could facilitate the design of communication strategies that respect cultural differences, improve information flow, and enhance mutual trust in high-stakes interactions.

Another promising approach is the intercultural competence model articulated by William B. Gudykunst, which identifies key components such as mindfulness, empathy, and tolerance for ambiguity. Gudykunst emphasizes that intercultural competence involves not just awareness but also active skills to create shared meaning. Applying this model to BP and U.S. government interactions would mean cultivating a mindset open to alternative perspectives, interpreting messages within their cultural contexts, and adjusting communication styles accordingly. Such adaptability could have mitigated the miscommunications and fostered a collaborative approach to crisis management.

In sum, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill exemplifies how cultural differences in communication patterns and devices can significantly impair international cooperation. The American low-context, transparency-oriented communication style clashed with BP’s high-context, hierarchical approach, leading to a breakdown in effective information sharing during a crisis. Utilizing intercultural communication theories such as Hall’s context model, Bennett’s stages of intercultural sensitivity, and Gudykunst’s competence framework offers valuable pathways for resolving these issues. Developing intercultural competence—through awareness, acceptance, and adaptable communication strategies—can facilitate more effective international interactions, particularly in high-stakes, cross-cultural settings. Embracing these approaches is essential to preventing miscommunication and promoting successful international diplomacy and commerce in an increasingly interconnected world.

References

• Bennett, M. J. (1998). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings. Intercultural Press.
• Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
• Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication. Sage Publications.
• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.
• Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming interculturally competent. In The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 519-535). Sage Publications.
• Thomas, D. C., & Meyer, E. (2008). Developing intercultural competence through study abroad. In The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 167-180). Sage Publications.
• Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press.
• Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23-45). Psychology Press.
• Lei, L., & Liu, Y. (2019). Cross-cultural communication and international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9), 1515–1528.
• Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2-52). Sage Publications.