The Model to Practice Dialogues™

Intercultural Communication

This case model examines how cultural differences influence communication and collaboration within a multicultural hospitality organisation, based on an interview with a staff member working in an international service environment. The case highlights how variations in directness, feedback styles, and expectations can lead to subtle misunderstandings between staff and guests. By applying intercultural communication theories, the analysis demonstrates how awareness of cultural norms can reduce inhibitive communication and support more effective teamwork and service quality in an international workplace

Interview in the Hospitality Sector

Excerpt

The organisation operates in a multicultural work environment, employing international staff and welcoming guests from Europe, North America, and the Caribbean. This makes it a suitable case for examining how cultural differences influence communication, teamwork, and decision-making in an international hospitality setting.

Interview Focus

Main question:

How do cultural differences affect communication and collaboration between staff and guests?

Key Interview Excerpt

“People interpret tone and feedback differently. I come from Curaçao, where communication is direct, but someone from Thailand may experience this as rude, even if that’s not the intention.” Short Analysis

Communication is not forbidden, but direct feedback can make others uncomfortable, depending on cultural background.

Different communication styles reflect cultural values, supporting Weaver’s view that meaning depends on interpretation, not just words.

Cultural Impact

Misunderstandings can affect teamwork and feedback moments
Guests from different cultures show different expectations and complaint styles
Staff adapt communication through experience and awareness

Cultural problem

The intercultural problem that emerges from the interview is a subtle issue that operates largely below the surface of everyday communication. Although employees use the same working language, they do not always share the same communication culture, which leads to misunderstandings. A central element of this problem is the difference between high-context and low-context communication. Some employees communicate directly, using a firm tone and explicit feedback. Others rely on more indirect communication, where meaning is conveyed through tone, body language, and the relationship, and where maintaining harmony is an important social norm. In this context, direct feedback can feel rude or personally confrontational, even when the intention is supportive. This results in inhibitive communication, where individuals withdraw, speak up less, or reduce participation in team discussions.

A similar pattern appears in interactions with guests. For some guests, openly expressing complaints is normal and seen as part of good service. For others, complaining feels socially inhibitive, as it may conflict with values related to politeness, gratitude, or avoiding confrontation.

This issue is not prohibitive, as no formal rules restrict communication. Instead, it is shaped by unspoken norms and social values that define what feels appropriate or respectful. These norms lie below the waterline of the cultural iceberg and strongly influence daily interaction. At its core, the problem stems from the assumption that one’s own communication style is neutral and universal. In reality, communication is culturally situated, and mismatches in style can lead to misjudgement without any harmful intent. Rather than appearing as open conflict, the problem manifests in small misunderstandings and gradual withdrawal, which over time affect cooperation, trust, and effectiveness in the workplace.

Hofstede Dimensions

Within the organisation, cultural “programming” is evident in all interactions. The internal staff dynamic highlights a fascinating contrast between individualism and collectivism. “High-context” Thai employees prioritise group harmony and “saving face” through a softer communication style, whereas “low-context” Curaçaoan staff express themselves more directly and individually. To avoid causing friction, the resort employs a low Power Distance strategy: while the owner has final say, employees are encouraged to generate ideas. This is supported by their “English-only” best practice, which acts as a cultural equaliser, ensuring that no “in-groups” or “out-groups” form based on language, resulting in a “Feminine” organisational culture centred on inclusion and mutual respect.

Externally, the resort must deal with varying levels of uncertainty avoidance among its guests. American travelers frequently exhibit high urgency, a desire to control the “unknowns” of their trip, whereas Dutch visitors exhibit lower uncertainty avoidance, often using humor to navigate service hiccups. The most difficult challenge, however, is the “silent” Caribbean visitor. Their reluctance to

complain is typical of high-context, collectivist behavior, in which maintaining “social peace” is more important than individual dissatisfaction.

By proactively checking in with these guests and implementing a Long-Term Orientation, the resort protects its reputation and ensures guest loyalty. This strategic adaptation, replicated by global leaders such as Marriott, demonstrates that success in a multicultural environment requires “shifting” one’s own dimensions to meet the cultural expectations of the guest.

Outcome

The outcome of this case study demonstrates that intercultural communication within the organisation is not primarily disrupted by open conflict, but by subtle mismatches in communication styles and unspoken cultural norms. Through the interview and analysis, it becomes clear that differences in directness, feedback styles, and expectations strongly influence how employees and guests interpret behavior. These differences often lead to inhibitive communication, where individuals withdraw, speak less openly, or hesitate to express concerns, rather than to visible confrontation.

By applying theoretical frameworks such as the cultural iceberg model, high and low. context communication, and Hofstede’s dimensions, the analysis shows that awareness is a key factor in reducing misunderstandings. When employees recognize that their own communication style is culturally shaped rather than universal, they become more capable of adjusting their behavior to different colleagues and guests. This awareness supports psychological safety within teams and improves service quality by ensuring that guest dissatisfaction is identified and addressed in time.

Overall, the case confirms that effective intercultural communication is not achieved through equal treatment alone, but through adaptive communication that takes cultural differences seriously. The main learning outcome is that small, everyday interactions have long-term effects on trust, teamwork, and guest satisfaction. By increasing cultural awareness and implementing reflective practices, the organisation can strengthen collaboration, prevent gradual withdrawal, and create a more inclusive and effective multicultural working environment.

Possible solutions

To address intercultural communication challenges, the organisation could implement structured intercultural communication training for all staff, focusing on differences in directness, tone, and feedback styles as explained by Hofstede’s value dimensions. This would help employees recognize how power distance, individualism–collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance influence daily interactions. By increasing theoretical awareness, staff would be better equipped to interpret behavior accurately and adjust their own communication accordingly.

Additionally, the organisation could organize team-building workshops in which employees learn more about each other’s cultural backgrounds and communication styles. During these workshops, staff could discuss real workplace situations and reflect on how different cultures interpret respect, urgency, and criticism. Such reflective dialogue would strengthen mutual understanding, reduce misinterpretations, and increase awareness of cultural differences within the team, which is essential for maintaining harmony in a multicultural team.

Furthermore, within the organisation a “cultural buddy” system could be introduced in which new or existing employees are paired with a colleague from a different cultural background. Through this informal shadowing and regular interactions, staff would learn directly from each other. This learning approach would help reduce uncertainty, supporting faster adaptation for newcomers and promoting long-term development of the team.

Together, these solutions combine theoretical knowledge, reflective practice, and experiential learning, making them both culturally sensitive and practically effective in improving teamwork and guest satisfaction.