To Speak or Not to Speak – that depends on the Context
?
(Steve Correa[i])
?This article explores the delicate nature of speech, particularly in interpersonal and cultural contexts, which is a profound and often overlooked dynamic. In many situations, speech serves as a medium for communication and a subtle reflection of social status, power dynamics, and emotional vulnerability. The decision to speak or remain silent is frequently not about withholding the truth but managing the social intricacies underneath. In the second half, the article explores Indian communication.
?Speech and Vulnerability
?In some cultures, open speech is inherently risky because expressing one’s views, ideas, or feelings exposes a part of oneself to judgment, criticism, or even rejection. This vulnerability can be deeply unsettling, especially in relationships where emotional investment is significant. Speaking candidly requires courage because it often leaves the speaker open to misunderstanding or the possibility of negative reactions. In many cultures, this risk is heightened because of the deep-seated importance of maintaining social harmony and preserving face (reputation or status).
?Cultural Importance of Status and Face
?In many Asian and collectivist cultures, for instance, the concept of "face" is deeply embedded in social interactions. Face, or one’s standing in the eyes of others, is tied to notions of respect, honour, and social belonging. To lose face can have lasting social repercussions for the individual and their group, family, or professional network. This creates tension: one must balance the need to express one's perspective with the need to avoid causing someone else to lose face or feel diminished in any way.
?When the stakes of preserving face are high, speech becomes cautious, measured, and often restrained. Instead of speaking directly, people may choose ambiguity or indirectness to maintain harmony. This self-restraint is a form of respect, acknowledging that one's words can carry unintended weight, potentially destabilising relationships. If one's views are seen as threatening to another’s status or self-image, the relationship may suffer irreparable damage.
?The High Cost of Disharmony
?To preserve harmony, opinions may be left unspoken or diluted to irrelevance. The avoidance of confrontation becomes a survival mechanism within the social fabric, as even one slight misstep in language could create an emotional rift that is hard to repair. In extreme cases, a poorly received statement could lead to an estrangement that lasts years, as the hurt caused might be interpreted as a betrayal of trust or respect.
?This is even more fragile because silence and avoidance often compound over time. What begins as a small, unspoken disagreement or restraint in communication may gradually lead to deeper misunderstandings and emotional distance. Over time, these small moments of unspoken speech form a chasm where neither party truly understands the other, yet both may feel the growing tension. The cost is losing an authentic relationship where people can openly share without fear.
?Consequences for Relationships
?In personal relationships, this fragility becomes even more pronounced. In close bonds, where the desire for trust and connection is high, the fear of a single catastrophic misstep in speech can prevent individuals from being fully present or honest. This can lead to surface-level relationships that maintain a facade of harmony while lacking true depth.
?For example, unspoken expectations or opinions may linger for years in familial relationships, breeding resentment and emotional distance. In professional settings, the fear of damaging one’s reputation may lead to decisions based on consensus and politeness rather than genuine dialogue and creative problem-solving.
?The Power of Navigating Speech Delicately
?Navigating this fragile terrain of speech requires wisdom, empathy, and discernment. It demands that we recognise when silence is helpful and becomes a hindrance. While preserving harmony is important, it should not come at the cost of genuine communication and connection. The challenge lies in finding ways to speak truth in a way that is considerate of others’ vulnerabilities without silencing oneself.
?Learning to offer views with care and thoughtfulness while remaining open to the fact that others may react unexpectedly is key to overcoming speech's fragility. This is a delicate dance of maintaining a balance between assertiveness and empathy, truth and tact, self-expression and the preservation of relationships. Only then can speech, even when fragile, foster deeper understanding rather than creating division.
?Exploring Indian Communication Style
?Fons Trompenaars views India as a ‘neutral-affective’ society and is cautious about displaying emotions to colleagues, particularly subordinates. Japan, Singapore, and the UK are ‘neutral’, which means people do not believe in displaying their emotions, while Italy, Mexico, the US, and Brazil are ‘affective’ and readily express their emotions.[1]
?On Indulgence versus Restraint, Hofstede scores India at 26 as a restrained society. Restraint is seen when a society controls the gratification of needs and regulates it using strict social norms. Indian leaders do not express their emotions freely. At the same time, liberty, leisure and happiness are given lesser prominence.[2] Those who behave noisily and emotionally risk social disapproval, especially if they are from a higher status. One is more accommodating to the more marginalised backgrounds. Emotions are kept private, even suppressed, and such cultures have a predominance of heart-related diseases. A well-known cardiologist confirms Indians are ‘four to five times more prone to heart disease compared to other races”.[3]
领英推荐
The innocuous culture comes across as quiet, lazy, and easy-going, but it is only the lens of the beholder. Indian leaders have a propensity for minimal risk aversions, and employees show less aggressiveness in business (seen as being disrespectful), depending more on their relationships to progress business outcomes. ?Change is viewed as a process of gradual evolution, a strong push, slowly’ (Jor ka dakka there se) and the belief the future can never be known.
?The communication style of Indians is extroverted, lively, and talkative; they tend to think aloud, interrupt often, have a forceful style and an overt body language which is expressive and use silence, especially if they do not wish to disagree. At an informal level, they crave the ‘adda’ (hangout) to catch the informal grapevine. It is an argumentative society and enjoys dialogue and discourse. Indians prefer relative consensus, where all parties can live with their differences, even while an individual’s ‘non-negotiables’ are protected. This is the preferred mode and is more acceptable to a majority rule. The majority is the last resort, considered a collective failure. One could easily misunderstand this as factionalism. Think again - a democracy manifests when there is a simultaneous presence of ‘friendlies and hostiles, progressive and traditionists’.[4] Often, Leaders struggle to stay on track with the focus of the discussion.[5] She loves bargains and negotiations, and most of all, value for money (Paisa Vasool). There is a tendency to take things at face value, and jokes can often fail.[6]Indian Leaders would prefer to elaborate than be succinct.[7]
?Indians play down self-acknowledgment and tend to subsume one’s own individual identity to group interests. An individual from the West is more goal-focused and driven. In India, ‘individual achievement tied to family pride or, at a wider level, with community”.[8]Parents even play down complimenting their children, as they believe praising them is tantamount to praising themselves, which they wish to avoid.
?Indian leaders used diffused communication as opposed to specific and direct communication. Trompenaars clarifies that in diffuse cultures, indirect communication carries contextual clues to convey understanding. When an Indian executive says, “No problem, or No worries,” it does not mean he does not have any. He is simply saying, “There will be problems, but I will manage them as best as I can.”
?A study establishes that Indians display high context sensitivity in judging time and place and sensing the ‘others’ mindset’ – ‘watching for opportunities’.[9] Judging is knowing when to be silent, say what, delay or rush, be alert to opportunities, and the right timing to exploit them. Judging involves distinguishing ‘friends from opportunists’. Sensing includes what others think and expect, what they mean and intend in their behaviour, and what future prospects the workplace holds. Watching involves waiting patiently for a resourceful person to get into a good mood before asking him for a favour, having a knack for figuring out who can be useful in the future, and waiting for the right moment to strike back at the adversaries”.[10]
?
[1] MATTHEW MACLACHLAN CROSS CULTURAL THEORY: EXPRESSING YOUR EMOTIONS ACROSS CULTURES, Communicaid, 15th July, 2010
[3] R. Ravikanth Reddy, Indians genetically more prone to heart diseases, The Hindu, HYDERABAD, JANUARY 13, 2019 21:47 IST.
[4] Lurie, Nancy Oestreich. “Money, Semantics, and Indian Leadership.”?American Indian Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 1, 1986, pp. 47–63.?JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1184155 . Accessed 27 Feb. 2020.
[5] Shoji Nishimura, Anne Nevgi and Seppo Tella, Communication Style and Cultural Features in High/Low Context Communication Cultures: A Case Study of Finland, Japan and India, Department of Education, University of Helsinki, Page 794,
[6] Richard D Lewis, When Cultures Collide: Leading across Culture, Nicholas Brealey International, page 434-439.
[7] Chapter, Rajesh Kumar, Anand Kumar Sethi, Communicating with Indians, Page 170 – 177,?? Larry A. Samovar, Richard E. Porter, Edwin R. McDaniel, Intercultural Communication: A Reader, Thirteen Edition, Edward T. Hall, Monochronic and Polychronic Time, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012, Page 313 - 320
[8] Jai Arjun Singh, A study in Indian-ness, Business Standard, June 14, 2013
[9] https://www.publishingindia.com/GetBrochure.aspx?query=UERGQnJvY2h1cmVzfC8yMDQyLnBkZnwvMjA0Mi5wZGY=
[10] IBID 200
[i] Steve Correa is an Executive Coach and Author of The Indian Boss at Work, Thinking Global, Acting Indian???
?
Head of payments platform - Building platform to handle RealTime / Bulk / Cross-border / High-value payments that is performant, resilient, observable, cloud-native, scalable & cost optimal | Yoga Therapist | Coach
1 个月In my experience, the hero figure for leaders (in the face of uncertainty) is to think of long term and never give into outbursts or confrontations (of course, there is a normal curve here). The communication patterns I have seen typically are: 1. Don't disagree with other leaders in public. Deal with it in closed rooms. 2. Outsource the ugly work of confronting team members to the bad cop manager. Leader is always the considerate one. 3. Any short term actions are purely situational and not deliberate choices towards short term goals. 4. Conversations to end on a pleasant note - as much as possible! I see many of these in me too. Except for one or two, most leaders I have seen, seem to conform to the above. I experience a lot of risk in deviating from the above. I further experience resentment when I judge the other as deviating from this too much than me ?? It's a delicate game in communicating what one truly feels, in pursuit of ones goals, while not disturbing the fabric too much!
Leadership Coach| Helping Executives Lead Change|Transitions coaching|Ex CMO ,HDFC bank|Hogan certified & PCC| TEDx speaker|Co-Founder Hansa Cequity
1 个月Excellent article, Steve. And with speech comes the choice of words. I believe we often use corporate warlike words in the corporate world. Yet I see women leaders displaying a different language, more about that here:https://open.substack.com/pub/customeriq/p/dance-like-a-woman?r=4b7ij&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I support people in their journey of discovering Connection of Mind, Body and Emotions. NLP Coach I Tedx Speaker I Yoga and Garbha Samsakar Teacher I Entrepreneur I Sustainable Fashion Designer
1 个月It was quite interesting to read the perspective on Indian communication. I believe the nuances of our conversation are hard to articulate. They change with every state. What a simple hmmm or a nod can communicate in a context, words and sentences fail. ??.
I enable people to become the best they can be
1 个月Good perspective. However, adding an emic to an etic perspective will help. I found myself saying yes sometimes, saying mmm...and no at other times. Then I saw your reference section, not enough Indian authors, I said to myself. But then most Indian authors would use colonised frames of reference any way!!
Strategic thinking | Leadership | Business development | Key Account Management | Brand Building &, Business Accelerator
1 个月Silence is usually contextual. However, the key is to balance between context and righteousness