In the Workplace


Directness on the Job

What forms does directness American-style assume on the job? The most common form is probably in how Americans state their opinions and in how they expect others to state theirs. If you ask them what they think about something ” something you ve proposed, something you ve done, something you ve heard about ” by and large Americans feel obliged to give you an honest answer, something that closely approximates what the speaker actually thinks or feels about the matter. The answer will be more or less honest depending on how well the two speakers know each other, and especially on the power relationship between them, but it will not usually be dishonest, that is, something other than what the person thinks.

This is true whether the opinion is favorable or unfavorable and whether or not he or she agrees or disagrees with you. The obligation to answer honestly is not somehow mitigated when the answer may not be what the other person wants to hear; indeed, plain-speaking Americans instinctively assume that what the other person wants to hear is the truth, that is, what one honestly thinks or feels about the subject in question (also known, tellingly, as the naked truth). Business discussions [in America] may be forthright to the point of being brusque, John Mole has observed . Bluntness is preferred to subtlety. Some Europeans consider American openness as unseemly and brash, unaware that what they believe is their own sophisticated reserve may appear muddleheaded and devious (2003, 264).

Listen to the advice on communication Stephen Viscusi gives to new American workers in his book On The Job: How To Make It in the Real World of Work:

It s vital that your style of communication doesn t trip you up, that it doesn t create unnecessary problems. So you want to avoid ambiguity and indirect communication, because those qualities are the causes of so many problems. Instead, you want clarity and directness. That s what virtually everyone else wants too, because they allow the organization to function smoothly. (2001, 163)

The insistence on giving honest answers also explains another dimension of American directness: the relative ease with which Americans say No. Compared to many cultures, Americans find it relatively easy to give a negative reply, to turn down a request, for example, or say they didn t understand something, that they re not available, that something is not possible or not convenient . For Americans, no is like any other answer; if it s the truth, then it s what they have to say. They may surround no with nicer words to make it go down better, but generally they won t change no to another answer in order to please the listener.

Reluctance to emphatically state a negative response, Dean Engel has written,

and the tendency to resort to euphemism ( That would be difficult ) ” common approaches in Asian cultures ” are sources of aggravation to Americans, who are more concerned with knowing the intent of others than with having their feelings spared. Indeed, even at the cost of what others would consider good manners, Americans pride themselves on saying what they mean ” in cowboy parlance, shooting from the hip ” and they expect others to do likewise. (1997, 74)

Negative Feedback

All of the above notwithstanding, Americans struggle with giving negative feedback (though they have no trouble at all giving the positive kind). While this doesn t seem to square with their being direct, Americans draw the line when it comes to anything that could be seen as personal criticism or comments that might hurt another person s feelings. Whether it s because they want to be liked or to protect their own feelings, Americans are careful not to be too critical whenever someone asks for direct feedback about their performance. Too critical is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder, of course, but generally it consists of saying something negative without preceding it with something positive or without somehow qualifying the negative observation.

If you have done a very poor job on a report, for example, Americans will not simply say you have done a very poor job and leave it at that; they will say, rather, that the report is pretty good or not bad and then talk about how it might need some work. It s called damning with faint praise, and it is an exception to the telling it like it is style that Americans usually prefer. A number of German acquaintances have told me they don t really feel comfortable dealing with Americans, Richard Lord writes , because they tend to be altogether more circumspect in their criticisms, that they will pad the truth to protect the other persons feelings (1996, 50). (For more on feedback, see Giving Feedback, page 168.)

Cutting to the Chase

Another form American directness takes is the tendency Americans have to get to the point as soon as possible in a conversation. They tend to be linear in their thinking, looking for and taking the shortest distance between the starting point of an observation and the conclusion or end point. Thus they typically provide a minimum of detail or context in their statements and tend not to qualify their observations or otherwise clutter up the message with interesting but ultimately extraneous information. Accordingly, they get very impatient with digressions or other conversational enhancements that don t have a direct, immediate bearing on the point. They don t like it when speakers get off the subject, talk in circles, or otherwise fail to cut to the chase. Ultimately, of course, all this is driven by the real point, which is: What are we going to do about the matter?

With their impatience for details and their desire to quickly get to the point, Americans strike many non-Americans as simplistic and na ve, in the sense that some things are not as simple, not as black and white as Americans want to make them. The point, in other words, can sometimes be multifaceted and complex and only make sense when put in its proper context. By and large, Americans aren t very good at handling complex matters, at being able to examine something from several perspectives at once, for example, or accommodating conflicting ideas about an issue or proposal. They like neat categories and typically try to strip the complex down to a few basics, believing, as they often say, that nothing can be that complicated.

While most Americans would probably not regard quickly getting to the point as being abrupt or direct ” they would think it s just being efficient ” it is often seen that way by people who prefer to slowly close in on their main point, all the while gauging the other person s reaction as the message starts to emerge and retreating or changing the subject if the reaction does not appear to be favorable. By getting right to the point, Americans don t give listeners time to signal their reactions or the speaker the chance to back off, thus setting up potential unpleasantness if the point is going to be contentious, for example, or embarrassing to the listener.

In a related habit, Americans waste little time in what they call getting down to business in a conversation, preferring to dispense with greetings and small talk as quickly as possible and get to the point of the meeting, which for low-context Americans is primarily to accomplish some kind of task. But for high-context people, for whom the object of a meeting or conversation is primarily to cultivate and strengthen the personal relationship (and secondarily to execute the task), dispensing with the pleasantries is not only rude, it s missing the point. This helps explain why Americans strike some non-Americans as being interested only in the task and not in people, which in turn gets them branded as opportunists, focusing exclusively on the deal or the sale. Not surprisingly, such people can never be entirely trusted.

At a Meeting

Another characteristic of straight talk is that it is usually not adjusted to suit the situation. In many cultures, what people say in public, at a meeting, for example, is quite different from what they say one-on-one in private. In public you say what you have to; in private you say what you think. But Americans tend to talk equally straight whether they re speaking in front of several people or to just one other person. They may choose their words more carefully in a meeting, but the public and private versions of what they say will closely resemble each other. Americans generally think of meetings as being inefficient anyway (see Meetings, page 155), so meetings where people don t say what they think are an even greater waste of time. Even at the risk of causing minor offense or embarrassing someone (already a lesser risk in the United States than in other cultures), Americans give honest answers in meetings ” and expect them from others. Indeed, if you approach an American after a meeting to tell the person what you really think, he or she will probably ask you why you didn t say so in the meeting.

It is also acceptable to disagree with someone at a meeting. While in some high-context cultures people prefer to confine disagreements to one-on-one encounters and may even use third parties to convey the message ” to avoid confrontation and to allow all parties to save face ” Americans often disagree with each other in public. They like to get to the bottom of things, as they say, get everything out in the open , and find out where everyone stands on the matter being discussed. They believe it is important to ask questions, raise objections, and express opposing points of view at a meeting; indeed, this is the purpose of many meetings. And if this sometimes means disagreeing with other people, then so be it. There are important exceptions, of course; typically, Americans would be somewhat careful about disagreeing with their boss or more senior persons at a meeting, and they would not as a rule disagree with their boss in front of outsiders. Nor would they disagree with a guest at a meeting, someone from outside the division or the organization.

Confrontation

At the same time, and somewhat improbably, Americans generally don t like arguments or confrontation. They believe that it is entirely possible to disagree with someone without getting into an argument, which they define as getting agitated or upset and being on the verge of losing self- control. They believe this because they also feel that people ought to be able to separate themselves, hence their feelings and self-image, from the issue being discussed, to confine the conversation to the facts, the problem, the situation, without, as they say, pointing the finger at anyone . It ought to be possible, in short, to disagree with or take exception to something another person has said or done without getting upset, attacking the individual, or otherwise getting personal. If you have to get personal, then you have, as Americans say, gone too far.

Americans are especially wary of arguing with friends and close colleagues (who are often one and the same). In spite of their habit of being frank, Americans very much want to be liked, and arguments can easily end up with people not liking each other. American friends try to offer positive support to each other, it has been noted,

and to establish harmony. If they disagree, they may down play their differences, agree to disagree, or try to smooth things over to maintain good relations. Bickering, argument and open disagreement are signs that people are not getting along well and that the relationship may be in danger of falling apart. (Asselin and Mastron 2001, 89)

Direct Questions and Requests

Just as they are direct in their answers, Americans also tend to be direct in their questions ” in the sense that with only a few exceptions, Americans feel free to ask about whatever is on their mind. In a culture where saving face isn t very important, where people are mainly interested in knowing the truth, very few questions are out of bounds. If it s not particularly embarrassing or shameful to have to admit to mistakes or personal shortcomings, to reveal problems, or to tell people things they may not want to hear, then there s no reason to worry about questions that might evoke such responses. There can be only delicate questions, in short, in cultures where there are delicate answers, and in low-context cultures, the delicacy threshold is relatively low.

Americans are also direct in the way they make requests; if they need or want something or want you to do something, they will simply ask. If you have or can do that thing, you will answer yes; if you don t have or can t do that thing, you will answer no. This is so completely natural to Americans that they find it hard to imagine there could be any other way to handle requests and, therefore, that their own approach could possibly come across as direct.

In high-context societies , however, making requests is a potentially delicate matter, in the sense that if the person of whom the request is made has to turn down or refuse it, then he or she is put in the awkward position of upsetting or disappointing the questioner. For this reason, people from more indirect cultures rarely make direct requests, unless they already know the answer will be yes; rather, they simply describe what it is they need and leave it at that. Other indirect speakers will hear this description for what it is (a call for help) and either answer in the affirmative , if they can do what is being asked of them, or say nothing at all if they cannot. Either way, since a request is never actually made, it never has to be refused . Needless to say, this tactic will break down completely if it is used on Americans; since they don t interpret a statement of need as a request, they don t reply to such statements. But indirect speakers should not interpret the American failure to reply as a negative answer.

Indirectness: A Primer

As the above example amply illustrates, one of the most important things for non-Americans to understand about low-context/straighttalking Americans is that by and large they do not understand people who don t talk straight. If one is a direct communicator, surrounded by other direct communicators, then one has very little experience with, hence very little understanding of, indirect communicators . If you are from a more high-context/indirect culture, such as much of the Asia- Pacific region, Latin America, and much of Africa, you should realize that Americans will not recognize many of the most common techniques you will use, to say nothing of the messages you re trying to convey. This section offers a few observations on how techniques for communicating indirectly are perceived by Americans (although we note, for the record, that these techniques would not seem indirect to those of you who actually use them but only to more direct speakers).

Understatement

The first thing indirect communicators must remember is that Americans will interpret what you say literally, which means that above all you should be very careful about using any kind of understatement. The essence of understatement is to say less than what you actually mean, knowing your listener will supply the rest by reading into your words the real message. But Americans expect people to say what they mean and only understand as much as is actually said.

If you remark, for example, that doing something may be a little difficult or that you have a small suggestion, meaning that doing that thing will be impossible and that the small suggestion is a polite request, Americans will not understand. Taking your words at face value, they will assume a little difficult means entirely possible if slightly inconvenient, and that a small suggestion is nothing to worry about. If you want Americans to know something is not possible, you have to use the words not and possible in close proximity, and if you re making a request, don t call it a suggestion, especially not a small one.

Bad News

People from indirect cultures rely especially heavily on understatement whenever the message to be communicated is somehow awkward, delicate, or embarrassing. If you have any kind of negative feedback to give, for example, or any kind of bad news ” We re behind schedule, We need help, There s a problem, This is going to cost more or take longer than we thought ” or if you have made a mistake or don t understand something, indirectness is called for. Because all of these exchanges potentially involve loss of face, whether the speaker s or the listener s, the message has to be phrased very carefully, so carefully that the delicate matter is often not explicitly mentioned at all.

Negative feedback, for example, often takes the form of faint praise, saying someone is doing an adequate job, that something is okay, that the work is acceptable, or even saying nothing when feedback is requested or clearly expected. The same goes for delivering bad news: if there s a big problem, you may call it a minor difficulty or a slight setback. If you re an Indian subcontractor, let s say, running behind schedule on a project, you will try to convey this to an American with typical understatement ” such as asking if this is still a good schedule, by saying how very busy you are these days, or by saying that almost everything will be ready on the due date. If you use these methods to say you re not going to make the deadline, the American will not understand.

You will also need to be more direct in asking for help. Americans won t realize you need help if all you do is say how complicated what you re working on has become or if you talk about the last time the American helped you. These might be obvious calls for help in your culture, but Americans won t read anything into these statements; they ll just interpret them literally and be quite puzzled.

You should remember that just as Americans do not usually under- stand understatement, neither do they use it. If an American says something will be a little difficult or that someone s work is acceptable, that s exactly what he or she means, nothing more and nothing less. As a rule, there s no need to read anything into what an American says, to supply what is missing or deliberately left unsaid. When Americans speak, nothing is missing, and chances are very good that anything that has not been said has not been thought.

Saying No

Since negative answers can be awkward or delicate, indirect speakers have worked out ways of saying no without ever having to actually use the word. The problem for Americans is that they take you at your word, so that if you don t say the word no, an American doesn t hear no . If, as an indirect communicator, you use any of these techniques with Americans, they usually don t work, with the inevitable result that you re quite sure you have said no and the American has simply not heard it.

One common way indirect speakers say no is to simply avoid the question they have been asked. If it s not polite (or necessary) to say no in your culture and you are in a position when you can t say yes (because it would be untruthful), then you would typically give a negative answer in one of two ways: by saying nothing at all or by sending the question back to the person who asked it. But you should remember that while other indirect speakers will know what you mean by sending the question back or by avoiding it all together (i.e., no), Americans will simply be confused . When you say nothing in response to a proposal or suggestion, Americans usually take that as a positive sign, not a negative one, and when you ask Americans a question (even if it is their own question coming back to them), they treat it like any other inquiry and simply answer it.

Consider the following exchange:

BILL:

We need to schedule the next team meeting.

HIROKO:

Good idea.

BILL:

How about next Tuesday morning?

HIROKO:

Tuesday?

BILL:

Yes, would 10:30 be OK?

HIROKO:

10:30? Is it good for you?

BILL:

Yes, it s fine.

HIROKO:

I see.

If you re Hiroko in this exchange, you ve made it quite clear that this meeting time is not good for you. First, you refused to answer Bill s question and sent it back to him ( Tuesday? ); then you did the same thing with the question about the meeting time ( 10:30? ); then you asked him a question about his own question ( Is it good for you? ); and finally, you never said yes .For you, these are very direct ways of answering in the negative. But here again you should remember that Americans like Bill will interpret what you say literally; questions will be interpreted as questions (not polite forms of no) and will be answered ; and never saying yes just means you never said yes, not that you meant no.

A variation on this same technique is to comment in the negative about a proposal or suggestion by asking the speaker what he or she thinks of it instead of saying what you think of it yourself. What you mean when you do this is something like, I m not commenting on this because if I did, I would have to say something negative. But this is not what an American will think. Such an exchange might go something like this:

LINDA:

Hi, Carmen. How are you?

CARMEN:

Fine, and you?

LINDA:

I m OK. I was wondering, Carmen, what would you think if we decided to move up the deadline for the new software release?

CARMEN:

Move it up?

LINDA:

Just by a week, at the most.

CARMEN:

Do you think it s possible?

LINDA:

Should be. But what do you think?

CARMEN:

You don t see any real problems, then?

LINDA:

Not really. My people can be ready if your team can get it done by then.

Carmen doesn t like the suggestion, and she communicates this by immediately asking questions and also by never saying anything positive. But this is not how Linda will interpret this conversation.

Finally, many indirect speakers actually say no by using the word yes, followed by but or and, by some kind of qualification, additional information, or even a question, which is the real answer. The problem here, of course, is that Americans take your yes for your real answer and don t even listen to what comes next. Such a conversation might go like this:

CAROL:

How s the design coming along, Yang?

YANG:

Fine, fine.

CAROL:

Are we still on schedule?

YANG:

Oh yes. We re working extra hard on this.

CAROL:

Great. My people are anxious to see the new layout.

YANG:

Of course. When are they expecting to see it?

CAROL:

By the end of the week, like we agreed.

YANG:

I see.

If you re Yang, you probably think you ve made it clear that you re not going to be ready by the end of the week. First you said you were working extra hard on this, by which you meant you re behind schedule, and then you pointedly asked Carol when her people were expecting to see the design. Since you know the schedule, you know when her people are expecting to see the design; so what you obviously meant was that her people may need to adjust their expectations! But Carol will not read between the lines in this way; she will just take your words at face value ” especially when you answer Oh yes to her question about being on schedule.

The thread that runs through many of these techniques is that in the case of a negative or disappointing answer, the message often comes in the form of what is not said, whether it s not answering the question or simply never saying yes. If you re an indirect communicator, then you know how to listen for what is not said, but Americans take people at their word ” and if there are no words, then there is no message.

Exceptions to Straight Talk

Even Americans don t always peddle the unvarnished truth, and in fact they have several habits that tend to undermine their straight-talking credentials, beginning with their insistence on always looking on the bright side. Americans will go to almost any lengths to avoid sounding negative, pessimistic, or defeatist, even if it means being somewhat less than honest and candid . They try to stay away from topics they refer to as downers and to stay out of conversations that bring you down, as in down from the giddy heights of optimism and happiness. These topics include anything to do with evil or the dark side of human nature, which Americans either ignore or try to explain away, anything that suggests failure, defeat, or any kind of setback ” especially with death, the ultimate setback ” or anything to do with limits or limitations, such as reasons why something cannot be done, should not be tried, or is not possible.

The American language, Stephanie Faul has observed,

embraces the bias towards good feelings. No one has a failure; he or she has a deficiency rating. Someone doesn t have a near brush with death; he or she has a life affirming experience. Stocks that plummet to half their value are not losers; they re non-performers. Applicants who do not receive a job offer are selected out. An upbeat business vernacular calls every problem a challenge and every massive layoff right-sizing.

All this mindless good nature . . . is enough to give a European a deenhanced attitude. (1999, 63)

When they can t avoid these unpleasant realities, Americans try to trivialize them, either through language or by minimizing their significance.

Thus things are never as bad as they seem, never as hard as they look, will never take as long as you think, and are ever and always bound to get better.

Fantastic!

Another related characteristic that tarnishes the image of the straight- talking American is the national tendency to exaggerate. Americans see no particular value in describing something as it is if there s any way to make it sound better, and they routinely make highly inflated claims for their products, services, and abilities , for how fast or how cheaply they can do something, or how beautiful, strong, or long- lasting they can make something. Superlatives permeate the vernacular. Americans never settle for good when they can use great ; what is great immediately becomes fantastic ; and the truly fantastic is either sensational or fabulous.

The American writer Bill Bryson, who lived for many years in England, describes how the same product has to be sold in entirely different ways in the United States and England:

An advertisement in Britain for a cold relief capsule , for instance, would promise no more than that it might make you feel a little better. You would still have a red nose and be in your pajamas, but you would be smiling again, if wanly. A commercial for the selfsame product in America, however, would guarantee total, instantaneous relief. A person on the American side of the Atlantic who took this miracle compound would not only throw off his pj s and get back to work at once, he would feel better than he had for years and finish the day having the time of his life at a bowling alley. (1999, 11)

To some foreign observers, especially northern Europeans, the feel good rhetoric and the instinct to exaggerate seem to call into question the American commitment to straight talk. How can a people who pride themselves on telling it like it is refuse to see things the way they are? Part of the answer, suggested earlier, is that in the United States, as in any society, there are conflicting cultural influences; thus the instinct to tell it like it is may on occasion clash with the instinct to be positive and optimistic, and normally straight-talking Americans suddenly end up pulling their punches. People who are direct, in short, will not always be direct. Also, while Americans are rather good at telling it like it is, they re not nearly as good at seeing it like it is.

Political Correctness

Sooner or later the conversation about straight-talking Americans always comes around to the topic of political correctness. Numerous non- American observers have charged that thanks to political correctness Americans who might once have been free to say what they thought are no longer allowed to. Plain speech, it is said, has been replaced with politically correct speech, and double-talk has become the new national norm.

There is in fact some truth to this observation. At its core , political correctness is the American obsession with equality taken to an impractical extreme. If everyone is truly equal, then making distinctions between people is ultimately arbitrary and subjective , a random selection of one type ” white people, men, thin women, very intelligent people ” to serve as the standard against which others can then be measured (and, the implication is, found wanting). In a world where everyone is truly equal, it would not be possible to compare but only to describe, which is precisely what political correctness is all about. Hence, there are not disabled people but people who are differently abled, not fat and thin people but people who are differently sized .

If it s not possible to compare, then it s also not possible to judge, which is another of the central tenets of political correctness. Things can be understood only in their proper context, and all judgments , therefore, are automatically suspect and most likely biased . Everything is relative; one person s performance or attitude is not better than another person s; it is simply different. There are no absolutes and, ultimately, no standards.

Politically correct speech is most important when it comes to discussing sensitive social matters: anything to do with race, gender, religion, ethnicity , sexual orientation, and any kind of physical or mental disability. Even for Americans, conversations about these topics have become linguistic minefields; every observation is so carefully qualified, every conclusion so highly tentative, and the use of euphemism so rampant that it is no wonder the American reputation for straight talk has taken such a hit in recent years.

Unless you re very experienced , you would be wise as a non-American to stay away from these sensitive topics. If you have to venture into politically correct territory, then observe very closely the expressions Americans use.

How Americans See Others

The relative subtlety of indirect speech means that many Americans mis- interpret much of what high-context, indirect communicators say. Whether it s understatement, the meaning of what is not said, the ways of saying no, or the use of questions to disagree ” these and all the other techniques described above are generally not used and not understood by Americans. The problem in these cases, of course, is that Americans think they have understood the indirect communicator, so that when it turns out they have not ” when it turns out they have misinterpreted that person ” Americans quite naturally assume they have been misled or even lied to.

These scenarios can take myriad forms, of course, depending on the particular message that was misunderstood and the particular inaccurate expectation that was thereby set in motion. One common category is the unpleasantness that ensues when a direct American explains something to a person from a more indirect culture, asks that person if he or she has understood, the person says yes, and the American believes that s the end of it. But the yes didn t mean the person had understood, the American doesn t realize that further explanation or clarification is needed (and doesn t offer any), and the job is either not done at all (as the person politely waited for additional instruction) or, just as common, is done incorrectly because the person simply tried something and hoped it was right.

Another common category is the bad news scenario. In these cases, indirect communicators have told direct types that they are falling behind on something, won t be able to meet a particular deadline, or could use some help; but they communicated this message with such delicate understatement ” We re putting every available person on this. This is certainly a big job, isn t it? Do we still have the same deadline on this? ” that the plain-speaking American completely missed it. When the inevitable reckoning comes, the American is shocked to learn that the Indian vendor (for example) is behind schedule on the new software application, and the Indian vendor can t imagine how the American didn t know that.

A third, closely related scenario occurs when an American believes an indirect communicator has agreed to something (because he or she said yes) when in fact the person has not agreed. What the indirect type did, of course, was to use the word yes and then proceed to give his or her answer to the request ” which the American, having heard the other person say yes, either overlooked or regarded as mere details.

These scenarios can play out in various ways, but all have one thing in common: they end badly . Americans either go away thinking indirect types are lying to them or deliberately misleading them or that they re manipulative, that they play games , as Americans put it, telling everyone what they want to hear, or telling one person one thing and another person something completely different. In other cases, Americans may feel that indirect speakers are hiding something or somehow holding back, not saying all they know or how strongly they feel about the matter in question. Finally, indirect types can come across as servile or even sycophantic to Americans, trying to ingratiate themselves with or flatter other people in pursuit of their own interests.

Americans also find indirect communicators very inefficient. As they see it, when other people don t say what they mean, then they have to try to figure it out. But who has time for these guessing games ? It s also annoying when indirect people beat around the bush and never seem to get to the point, when they go off on tangents, or when they provide all manner of extraneous detail that just seems to Americans to get in the way of the message. Moreover, when people seem to take forever to get down to business, spending a lot of time catching up on each other s personal and family news and generally strengthening the personal relationship, they may strike Americans as not being very task-oriented or not taking business seriously.

In closing we should remember that there s nothing deliberate or intentional about the misunderstandings described in this chapter; it s not as if people are to blame for their communication style or that they re trying to misinterpret each other. A certain amount of misinterpretation is almost inevitable whenever a person from one culture tries to figure out what someone from another culture means. But even if they re not deliberate, these misunderstandings can be very frustrating and can easily undermine relations in the workplace. The Quick Tips in the box may help you avoid some of the more common pitfalls.

start sidebar
Quick Tips: Advice for Working with Americans
  • Don t expect Americans to understand understatement; they will interpret what you say literally.

  • Don t say yes unless you actually mean yes, unless you actually mean I approve, I agree, I accept, I understand.

  • If you want to say no, you must use the word no.

  • When Americans ask you if you have understood something, they will not be offended if you say no (but they will be upset if you say yes when you did not understand).

  • If you use any of the following techniques to express disagreement to Americans, they will probably not understand:

  • ask a lot of questions

  • say nothing in response to a suggestion or proposal “ answer a question with a question

  • change the subject

  • bring an agreed-upon subject up again for further discussion

  • Remember: When you think you re being blunt or even rude, Americans will probably think you re just being direct. And when Americans think they re being direct, you will probably think they re being rude.

end sidebar
 



Americans at Work. A Guide to the Can-Do People
Americans at Work: A Cultural Guide to the Can-Do People
ISBN: 1931930058
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2004
Pages: 51
Authors: Craig Storti

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net