Can you successfully transfer knowledge between high- and low-context cultures?
When considering knowledge transfer between different cultures, we will likely at first think about words and language. However, as I alerted in a previous RealKM Magazine article1, cross-cultural knowledge transfer needs to also consider the cultural context of communication, as described by Edward T. Hall in his book Beyond Culture2:
A high-context (HC) communication or message is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit transmitted part of the message. A low-context (LC) communication is just the opposite; i.e., the mass of information is vested in the explicit code.
Low-context cultures depend on explicit verbal communication and clear, direct messages. Examples include many Western cultures, such as the United States and Germany. High-context cultures, on the other hand, rely heavily on implicit communication, non-verbal cues, and the surrounding context to convey meaning. Examples include many Asian and Middle Eastern cultures.
Reader activity: Can you successfully transfer knowledge between high- and low-context cultures?
You now know the theory, but are you able to reflect it in your knowledge management (KM) practice? This is an example that I use in my cross-cultural communication teaching. Can you see what went wrong? Put your thoughts in the comments below.
Scenario:
An international travel and tourism fair is being held in Beijing, China:
- Mr. Li, the manager of a Chinese tour company, has an exhibit at the fair
- George Hall, a travel agent from the USA, is visiting the fair, and approaches Mr Li’s exhibit
Dialogue:
George is interested in Mr. Li’s company’s tours, and suggests that they arrange a meeting.
Mr. Li replied in fairly good English, “That would be interesting.”
“When can we meet?” asked George.
“Ah. This week is very busy,” replied Mr. Li.
“It sure is,” said George, “How about 10 o’clock tomorrow? Meet you here.”
“Tomorrow at 10 o’clock?” asked Mr. Li thoughtfully.
“Right,” said George, “I’ll see you then?”
“Hmm, yes, why don’t you come by tomorrow,” was the reply.
The next day at 10 o’clock, George went to Mr. Li’s company’s exhibit only to find that Mr. Li had some important business and was not there. George called back later in the day and was told that Mr. Li was not available.
What went wrong? Put your thoughts in the comments below.
Header image source: Freepik.
References:
This is a classic example of a high-context vs. low-context communication breakdown.
From George’s (U.S., low-context) perspective, he received a clear agreement:
“That would be interesting”
“Why don’t you come by tomorrow”
In a low-context culture, those statements are typically interpreted as confirmation.
However, from Mr. Li’s (China, high-context) perspective, he never actually agreed. Instead, he was communicating indirectly:
“This week is very busy” = a polite decline
Hesitation (“Hmm…”, “thoughtfully”) = uncertainty / non-commitment
“Why don’t you come by tomorrow” = non-committal, face-saving response
In high-context cultures, saying “no” directly can be seen as impolite or damaging to the relationship, so refusal is often implied rather than stated.
The core issue is that George relied on explicit words, while Mr. Li communicated through context and nuance. As a result, George believed a meeting was confirmed when, in reality, it never was.
From a knowledge management perspective, this highlights an important point:
Knowledge transfer is not just about what is said, but how it is interpreted within cultural context.
Without shared expectations or confirmation, even simple decisions (like scheduling a meeting) can fail due to context misalignment.
A simple fix in practice would be to introduce clear confirmation loops, such as:
“Just to confirm, are we meeting at 10 AM tomorrow?”
This scenario is a great reminder that effective KM must account for both explicit and tacit communication, especially in cross-cultural environments.
Also, to add to John’s comment, knowing when to back off. Mr. Li having met George for the first time wants to be agreeable so he doesn’t come right out and say, “I’m sorry, won’t be able to meet tomorrow.” Instead he hints that the week is busy. Still George is pushy and forces him to close on an appointment. George would have done better to ask when would be a good time to visit.
Context is important in most cultural settings. We can allay this somewhat in corporate organizations that often train their staff to comply with their preferred business culture. If working in a cross-cultural environment however, I think it’s a good idea to check in with colleagues who have the relevant communication experience.
Both earlier comments highlight valuable insights (confirming and actively listening to meaning, not transaction). It is always worth starting to build some Guanxi (connection/relationship) before attempting to do formal business arrangements. A casual conversation about the person, what they are interested in and why can help connect snd build trust. Finding mutual familiar experiences will build a personal connection foundation on which a trusted business relationship can be fostered.
John, Meena, and Arthur, thank you very much for your valuable comments. You have made some spot on observations – for example, John in regard to Mr. Li’s politeness and seeking to not cause offense, Meena in regard to George not sensing the direction of the conversation and acting accordingly, and Arthur in regard to casual conversation. However, these observations focus on what was said, that is, the low-context aspects of the communication. The key high-context aspect of the communication has been completely missed. This highlights that it is not as straightforward as might be assumed for people from low-context cultures to be able to successfully facilitate knowledge transfer in the high-context parts of the world.
In his book Beyond Culture (referenced above), Edward T Hall alerts to the critical role of rituals, patterns, and hidden rules in high-context communication. In this regard, George made a serious mistake from the very beginning. He asked Mr Li for a meeting when he should have invited Mr Li to dinner because “that is what is done” in that situation. Once he had broken the pattern of interaction, the rest of the conversation was pointless. My students in China readily identify this mistake by George, but it is always missed by people from low-context cultures.
The dinner invitation is also just the beginning of the pattern. For the greatest chance of business success, the next step would be for George to very carefully and subtly work out where Mr Li’s home town is, then invite him to dinner at a top-rated restaurant featuring the cuisine of Mr Li’s home town. George needs to book a private room in the restaurant, these are universal in China. Then, at the dinner, George must not be domineering, instead letting Mr Li lead things as much as possible. This includes letting Mr Li choose the dishes, which in a meal in China are shared by everyone by placing them in the centre of the table. When the dishes start to arrive from the kitchen, talking about them gives Mr Li an opportunity to start to open the conversation. Mr Li will also very likely order Chinese wine to drink with the meal, a very strong wine that is drunk in toasts in small shot-sized glasses. Once the wine is open and poured, Mr Li might make the first toast, or if not, George can, and they then take it in turns. What is said in each toast should be very complimentary and not come across as expecting any particular outcomes, particularly at first. When toasting, George must be careful to always hold his glass so it touches lower down on the side of Mr Li’s glass, towards the bottom, as a sign of respect. This can be tricky as Mr Li will very likely try to do the same. With good food, the right amount of wine, and carefully chosen words, conversation should start to flow freely. At the end of the meal, George should not try to seek firm outcomes, but rather ask Mr Li what their next step is, and engage with that. Towards the end of the meal, George should also indicate he needs to go to the restroom, but instead go to reception and pay for the meal, beating Mr Li to this, if Mr Li hasn’t already subtly done it before George.
You are so right! This is how it has been in private sector business even in Malaysia. Dinner is the deal clincher. Completely missed that. Thanks Bruce.