Giving clear instruction across cultures

Before going through these factors, let us first define what are clear instructions. Here are the most prominent descriptions that the seafarers gave us during informal interviews:

Overall, there is no reason for us to contradict any of these definitions. In fact, these are spot-on descriptions that accurately describe clear instructions. Let us simply not forget that clear instructions are measured by the successful completion of a job based on the specifications. If this is not achieved, then the instruction is unclear or misunderstood somehow.

In the rest of the article, we have attempted to lay down the cultural considerations and practical reminders when giving instructions. Be aware of this trap: One may be an excellent communicator when dealing with people from the same or a homogeneous culture, but what works in one culture may not be effective in others. Also, please note that these practical reminders may seem too trivial, but there is no harm in giving these ‘often overlooked’ practicalities more importance than before. After all, leaders can reflect on these and make small adjustments to their ways of giving instructions to make them better safety leaders.

These two cultural dimensions should be emphasised when talking about giving instructions across cultures – (a) low versus high power distance and (b) low versus high context communication cultures. First, let us deal with power distance.

High power distance cultures treat their leaders with high respect. What the leaders say are the rules that cannot be easily bent. This cultural tendency is evident in the Philippines, China, Japan, Singapore, India, Indonesia, and middle-eastern countries.

Subordinates from high power distance cultures have the tendency to avoid saying ‘No’ to their leaders, even if, for instance, the instructions given to them are unclear. They believe saying ‘No’ will make them look stupid. And this is a critical point for leaders to be aware of. When people from high power distance cultures say ‘Yes’, it is important for leaders or the giver of instructions to verify and make some follow-up questions to ensure correct understanding. Leaders may even ask their subordinates to restate the instructions to really ensure they have fully understood it.

Take note, however, that it is also challenging to motivate people from high power distance cultures to speak out. If they feel it is not safe to communicate or the level of trust between the leader and the subordinates has not matured yet, then they will simply keep quiet or give little response. In order to build trust, leaders can moderate their tone of voice, use friendlier gestures, and be more accommodating. When the subordinates already feel that it is safe to communicate because they trust their leaders, they become more open to asking questions. This will ensure that the instructions will be clarified and clearly understood.

In low power distance cultures such as Scandinavian countries, United States, United Kingdom, etc. subordinates are usually assertive enough to raise questions or concerns if they have some doubts on the given instructions.

In high-context communication cultures, both the sender and receiver rely heavily on both conscious and unconscious assumptions, reference points, shared experiences, etc. to understand one another.

The receiver needs to use all the senses to pick up the message since the words used are ambiguous, indirect, or implied. The receiver needs to read between the lines and look for other cues such as the facial expression, body language and gestures of the person giving instructions. In the context of safety, this communication style is definitely undesirable because it opens a lot of gray areas that can be interpreted differently. Problems may arise if the receiver’s interpretations crossed the safe margin, and this may result into a near-miss, accident, or any unsafe situations.

Instructions should be expressed so that there is no room for varying interpretation – no hidden meanings. This is where low-context communication comes as an ideal model. It is characterised by precise, clear, explicit, and literal communication. When instructions are given this way, the receiver will find less or no ambiguity at all. In reply to questions, the leader will not hesitate to repeat the instructions and clarify the gray zones. And in case the receiver is from a high-context communication culture, it is important for leaders to clarify with the person that there is no need to read between the lines, just simply follow the instructions literally. It should be noted that clear language is not in opposition to open dialogue.

Below are some examples of converting ambiguous statements (high-context) into precise, clear, explicit and literal statements (low-context):

On top of the cultural factors, there are a number of other reasons why the leaders’ instructions may not be clearly conveyed to or understood by the receiver.

1. Language barrier
One of the fundamental reasons is the language barrier where at least one of the parties is struggling in using the working language – English in most instances. It is also possible that the leader is
very adept with the language, but the prominence of his/her native accent makes it difficult for the receiver to understand.

2. Assumptions
Making assumptions, for instance, saying unfamiliar acronyms or shortened phrases, or referring to indefinite measures of distance, time, height, etc. can open a lot of uncertainties to the receiver. If
the latter is not assertive enough by way of clarifying things to make them clearer and specific, then the communication becomes ineffective.

3. Technical competence
It is also worth mentioning that receivers of instructions vary in terms of technical competence. More than the language factor, even those with good command of the working language may
misinterpret the instructions due to mental capacity, contextual factors, etc. Moreover, some are poor listeners – either they do not really want to listen or are unable to give full attention because
their focus at that particular moment is on other pressing matters.

Given the above factors and other cultural considerations, it becomes more evident that giving instructions should not be taken as a merely procedural endeavour. There has to be some extra care, flexibility, and to some extent, creativity to ensure that instructions are delivered with the right words and tone, and it will be understood correctly by the receiver. Below is an attempt to aggregate all the practical reminders in one bundle – 4Cs as we call it. Simply remember these four key words: common, complete, confirm, calibrate.

1. Use easy-to-understand and COMMON words
Make your message easier to digest by using words that are plain, direct, and as few as necessary. Also, use terms that are common to seafarers, such as the Standard Marine Communication Phrases
(SMCP)

2. Give specific and COMPLETE information
Explain how the job should be done – the steps, involved personnel, tools, other resources, the expected outcome, and completion date or time.  Instead of saying “immediately”, “very soon”, “ASAP”,
“within the week”, use specific time references. Instead of saying “few”, “some”, give the exact or best estimate. Remind about the hazards and risks, as well as the necessary paperwork to be
completed before starting the job. Also, provide a backup plan to address possible changes in environmental conditions, sudden reassignment of crew members, emergency situations, etc. It is a
good practice to supplement your verbal instructions with small written notes of the key points. After all, the receivers may not remember everything you said, especially if the instructions deal with
complex processes. If possible, give the instructions at the actual worksite so you can pinpoint the specific location, demonstrate a critical process, or better describe the steps. Another way to ensure
you give complete information is to avoid delegating the giving of instructions to another person. Adding a middleman may compromise the message as additional layers in the communication chain
may give different interpretations. In addition to the risk of communication breakdown, additional resources are used unnecessarily.

3. CONFIRM if your message is clear and understood
Do not assume that the receiver has the same understanding as you. Ask if the person has questions or need clarifications. To really check understanding, you may ask the receiver to recap your
instructions. Be mindful of the ‘Yes’ responses because, as explained earlier, these may actually mean ‘No’. Establish trust with your subordinates so that they will feel it is safe to communicate and
speak out.

4. CALIBRATE your instructions when needed
Be attentive to the receiver’s verbal responses, body movements and facial expressions. If deemed necessary, add non-verbal cues through actions, gestures, pointing to actual objects, or recalling
recently completed similar jobs. If a language barrier is evident, sketch a step-by-step process or let a competent interpreter help you. Keep in mind that regardless of the receiver’s cultural tendency,
the safe way to communicate instructions is to keep a low-context focus – explicit, simple, clear, literal, and precise.

Leaders need to be flexible

In the final analysis, giving clear instructions is not a rigid science. Leaders need to be flexible, creative and conscious of the cultural and other prevailing factors that should all be considered to make the instructions suitable and clear to the receiver. Just to emphasise: one may be an excellent communicator in his/her own culture, but what works in one culture may not be as effective in other cultures.