Building cross-cultural communications in international companies.

Building cross-cultural communications in international companies

1.2 Theories of cross-cultural communications by E. Hall, G. Hofstede, E. Hirsch

Currently, the process of globalization has covered various spheres of our life. Reducing barriers to international trade and the movement of foreign investment, the development of information and communication technologies contribute to the growth of mobility of goods, finance, and people.

Thanks to technological progress, large-scale political and economic changes, the modern world is forced to solve global problems of survival and, as a result, becomes covered by a dense network of communications necessary for the timely and effective resolution of emerging global problems.

In intercultural communication, globalization is expressed in the expansion of contacts, the migration of people from one country to another, and the borrowing of cultural values. The scale of cultural exchange is growing.

Modern technological advances significantly expand the possibilities of intercultural communication, thanks to the creation of new vehicles and the introduction of new forms of communication. The result is the availability of cultures for study, building effective relationships with representatives of different nationalities, the opportunity to enrich one’s own culture through acquaintance with the traditions, values, norms and way of life of other peoples.

Thus, in today’s dynamically developing world, intercultural interaction is becoming the norm and necessity. But at the same time, this interaction is increasingly accompanied by a wide variety of conflicts, the cause of which is the inability to come to an agreement. Failure in interstate negotiations, outbreaks of ethnic strife, even the refusal to conclude a contract with foreign business partners - society increasingly depends on mutual understanding and coordination between people belonging to different cultures.

Since the 60-70s. In the 20th century, scientists, representatives of ruling circles, businessmen - everyone who is in one way or another connected with international activities began to realize that the main factor underlying interethnic differences is culture.

According to the American anthropologist E. Hall, one of the founders of the science of ICC, it is culture that dictates to a person what to pay attention to in the process of communication. He believes that the environment has a great influence on the message being conveyed. According to the scientist, communication is more than simple oral or written speech. Mechanical translation from one language to another takes into account only the meanings of individual words and the system of grammatical norms adopted in a given language, while the context may be lost or deliberately ignored.

According to Hall, it is through context that the true meaning of a message is conveyed. Context refers to additional information accompanying the message and necessary for its correct interpretation by the recipient. The context is determined by the personality of the recipient, the characteristics of the interaction situation, and the experience of the communicator.

The interpretation of context is common to members of a given culture.

According to the scientist’s observations, representatives of all cultures use one or another contextual information in interpersonal communication, on which the understanding of the transmitted message depends; they are distinguished only by the extent to which this “hidden” information is used.

E. Hall distinguishes two types of context and, accordingly, two types of cultures: high-context and low-context.

Hall considers high-context cultures to be those in which, when transmitting information, what is said is not as important as where, when and under what conditions the communication occurs. Most of the meaning is thus conveyed indirectly: through social roles and statuses, non-verbal elements of statements (for example, speech rate, pauses, silence). In this case, the interpreter of the message is expected to be able to accurately recognize the hidden meanings of the transmitted information and identify non-verbal nuances accompanying the statement.

Messages in high-contextual cultures cannot be understood solely on the basis of the linguistic signs they contain. Their correct interpretation requires knowledge of the context, sometimes not only situational, but to a greater extent underlying the cultural picture of the world, specific to each nation.

Representatives of high-context cultures, which include the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Arabs, and Greeks, devote the main attention in communication to the non-linguistic context. For example, for residents of Taiwan or South Korea, the nonverbal aspect of communication is very important: features of gestures and intonation, status, hierarchical relationships, the appearance of the office, the location of company representatives at the negotiating table. The Japanese will not negotiate with a representative of another company if his status is not high enough, no matter how professional he may be. A Japanese “yes” does not necessarily mean agreement; the Japanese are sensitive to the interlocutor’s “saving face” and will never embarrass their partner with a public refusal.

When doing business with representatives of high-contextual cultures, you need to be prepared for the fact that partners will make serious efforts to establish trusting relationships, try to see each other in an informal setting, and in most cases less time and attention will be devoted to discussing the details of the transaction.

Within low-context cultures, information is contained in the most verbalized form, that is, transmitted using words. That is why knowledge of the language here plays a decisive role in building effective communication. The speaker is expected to make a persuasive and clear statement that can be easily decoded. More attention is paid to the content of the message rather than the context.

In low-context cultures, a direct communication style that clearly reflects the speaker's communicative intent is preferred. The message text is characterized by a cause-and-effect chronology.

In communication between representatives of low-context cultures, which include Germany, America, France, and Scandinavian countries, the environment is less important, and nonverbal behavior is often ignored. The emphasis is on discussing details, since communicants assume that their intentions will not be understood from the communication situation.

Thus, a comparison of two types of communicative cultures allows us to identify the distinctive features of each.

Thus, high-contextual cultures are distinguished by:

unexpressed, hidden manner of speech, significant and numerous pauses;

the serious role of nonverbal communication and the ability to “speak with your eyes”;

excessive redundancy of information, since initial background knowledge is sufficient for communication;

lack of open expression of dissatisfaction under any conditions and results of communication.

In turn, low-context cultures are characterized by the following features:

direct and inexpressive manner of speech;

a small proportion of non-verbal forms of communication;

a clear and precise assessment of all topics and issues discussed;

assessment of understatement as insufficient competence or poor information of the interlocutor;

open expression of dissatisfaction.

Ignorance or ignorance of the above differences may affect the choice of the wrong strategy and tactics when conducting negotiations, making decisions, and preparing joint formal and informal events. Accordingly, the effectiveness of business intercultural communication increases sharply if its participants are able to correctly interpret both verbal and nonverbal messages, as well as adapt their behavior in accordance with the expectations of representatives of a different culture. Mutual understanding will largely depend on the ability to find a compromise between the values of one’s own and another’s culture.

A classic of cross-cultural research is the model for describing business cultures created by the Dutch sociologist and researcher in the field of cross-cultural management Geert Hofstede.

Working on the problem of studying the influence of value orientations of employees, Hofstede 1967-1973. conducted a large-scale study at the multinational corporation IBM, one of the world's largest manufacturers and suppliers of hardware and software, as well as IT services and consulting services.

An analysis of the attitudes and values of employees and their impact on achieving the goals of the organization was carried out. His research consisted of surveys involving IBM employees from 72 countries. Based on the results obtained, Hofstede developed a four-dimensional model of national culture, including the following parameters or cultural dimensions:

power distance (PD);

individualism versus collectivism (IDV);

masculinity versus femininity - MAS;

uncertainty avoidance (UAI)

The “power distance” parameter reflects the degree of uneven distribution of power in society in general and in an organization in particular, as well as the extent to which society accepts or does not accept such a distribution. According to Hofstede, power distance can be low or high.

In cultures with high power distance, employees expect detailed instructions from managers and do not act without their direction. In countries with a high value of this parameter, power in the organization is highly centralized. Companies are distinguished by their desire for a clear hierarchical organizational structure. The large gap in the level of wages, the amount of bonuses and bonuses, as well as the degree of respect depends, first of all, on the position held.

The emotional distance between boss and subordinate is quite large; employees rarely contradict managers, being characterized by conformist behavior.

Communication flows in organizations are directed from top to bottom, that is, distributed vertically. Feedback is given little importance, authoritarian instructions from superiors are taken for granted, that is, any manifestation of power is considered the norm.

Cultures with high power distance, according to Hofstede, include the cultures of Spain, France, Singapore, India, Venezuela, and Mexico.

In contrast, organizations operating in low power distance cultures have few levels of management. The organizational structure of companies is highly decentralized, and hierarchy is created more for effective coordination than for demonstrating status and position.

Relations between managers and subordinates in cultures with a low value of this parameter are characterized by joint decision-making and the relative independence of subordinates from the boss. The emotional distance is small: employees readily contradict managers and are not afraid to demonstrate their point of view.

Hofstede considers the cultures of the USA, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Great Britain, and Germany to be cultures with low power distance.

Thus, the “power distance” parameter shows how centralized power is perceived by employees of the organization.

The individualism-collectivism dimension in Hofstede's research represents the degree to which an individual is involved in a group. It shows how much representatives of a particular culture prefer to act together, that is, uniting in groups, or rely on their own strengths, without limiting themselves to belonging to different groups. This parameter also reflects the predominance of the interests of a group or individual in achieving goals.

The high value of the parameter under consideration is typical for the individualistic cultures of Germany, the USA, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, in which the interests of the individual dominate, and the individual is distinguished by a high degree of self-esteem.

There are weak social ties between representatives of these cultures, and the individual is expected to take care of himself and his family independently.

Employees are distinguished by their lack of emotional dependence on the organization and are often intolerant of other people's points of view. They expect managers to take their interests and needs into account, which is what happens. In addition, in such cultures, employees are given greater freedom of action and decision-making is delegated.

In companies with a strong individualist culture, underperforming employees are immediately fired, and those who perform well are generously rewarded with a variety of bonuses and benefits. Moreover, such incentives are strictly targeted: they are provided to an individual, and not to the entire team working on the project.

In individualistic cultures, communicants do not bother asking about the life and health of their interlocutor; just a short “small talk” is enough to then move directly to a business conversation. Business in this case is much more important than interpersonal relationships: making a good deal, making a profit at the end of the day - that's what really matters.

Collectivism, as the reverse side of individualism, according to Hofstede, means belonging to a group as a core value. In cultures with a high value of this parameter, people from birth are distinguished by increased attention to family relationships, strive to establish close relationships with various groups and teams, counting on mutual care and loyalty. Group interests here prevail over their own.

In companies with a collectivist culture, there is a dominant belief in the power of the team, whose members try to coexist harmoniously and suppress conflicts and emotional tension.

Often the company employs members of the same family, which is considered a good way to strengthen the loyalty of the company's staff. The team cares about each employee, so he or she strives in every possible way not to let the others down. Employees who have compromised themselves and failed to cope with the assigned task are not fired or condemned. In this case, they are more likely to be transferred to another position that requires less skilled tasks.

This type of culture includes Asian cultures, countries of Latin America and Southern Europe.

The parameter “masculinity - femininity” in Hofstede’s theory means the predominance of traditional male or female values in various national cultures. The concepts of “masculinity” and “femininity,” according to Hofstede, reflect the social, culturally predetermined roles of men and women.

Masculine cultures exist in countries where men are expected, first of all, to play the role of a strong, self-confident provider, capable of being persistent and even tough in achieving their goals. Women in these countries have professions that are different from those of men.

Feminine cultures, on the contrary, are common in countries where men and women occupy the same positions, that is, there is no division of professions into exclusively “female” or “male”. Men are allowed to be sensitive and take care of the home and children, while women can work tirelessly to achieve professional success.

The division of cultures into masculine and feminine gives rise to different approaches to management. For example, in organizations with a high degree of masculinity, managers act by making decisions independently. On the contrary, in companies with a feminine culture, such autocratic behavior will not lead to the success of the organization. Here preference is given to collective decision-making and consensus-building, and the work of the manager recedes into second place.

Feminine culture is inherent in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Portugal. In these countries, interpersonal relationships, mutual assistance, caring for others are valued, and great importance is attached to comfort in the workplace and intangible values.

Masculine culture, characteristic of Italy, Japan, Germany, Great Britain, Austria, is characterized by aggressive behavior in achieving goals. Great importance is attached to such values as perseverance, the desire for recognition, achievement; material wealth means much more than building relationships with others.

Such differences in values lead to different types of communication.

Male and female communication styles have quite serious differences, which must be taken into account in the conditions of intercultural interaction. Researchers of gender differences note, for example, that for men it is typical to focus attention on the content of the message; for women? When maintaining relationships, women and men use different tactics of persuasion and motivation, use different methods of punishment and reward, and see ways of resolving conflict situations differently.

Thus, the “masculinity - femininity” parameter proposed by Hofstede is important for building effective communication.

Measuring cultures along the dimension of “uncertainty avoidance” involves comparing the degree to which an employee seeks to avoid an uncertain situation by creating formal procedures and instructions, increasing the degree of stability in his professional career.

In cultures with a high parameter score, people feel comfortable in certain, familiar situations. There is a strong need here for written and unwritten rules, laws that monitor compliance with the rights of workers and employers and their responsibilities.

Representatives of cultures with a high degree of apprehension and fear of uncertainty rely on experts and government officials when making decisions, preferring the routine course of events and bureaucratic order.

Constant feelings of anxiety are relieved through open expression of emotions. People are not prone to risk; they react painfully to behavior that differs from the generally accepted one.

Cultures with a high degree of uncertainty avoidance include the cultures of Japan, Belgium, Germany, France, and Greece.

Cultures with low levels of uncertainty avoidance are characterized by a willingness to take risks and a tolerant attitude towards a variety of changes and new ideas. Representatives of these cultures adapt more quickly to rapidly changing situations. They perceive change as new opportunities that allow them to demonstrate high competence.

Employees of companies operating in countries with low uncertainty avoidance have a certain aversion to formal rules and procedures, believing that they should be used only when absolutely necessary. They feel proud if they manage to solve an unusual problem that suddenly arises without using any instructions or regulations from management.

A low value of the parameter suggests pluralism of opinions. Representatives of these cultures are confident in their ability to make decisions and influence senior management, and strive to be actively involved in the transformations taking place in the company.

In cultures with a low degree of uncertainty, which Hofstede refers to as the cultures of the USA, Singapore, Norway, and India, innovations are more often born, because their representatives are not afraid of everything new and unknown. But at the same time, there are difficulties in implementing emerging ideas, since this process requires precision in detail and punctuality, and these qualities are known to be more characteristic of representatives of cultures with a high level of uncertainty avoidance.

Later, to the four parameters characterizing business cultures discussed above, another one was added - long-term or short-term orientation.

This parameter characterizes the attitude of representatives of a particular culture to the past, present and future. It has been in use since the 1990s. after a study of the business cultures of Asian countries, the results of which showed the difference in the behavior of Europeans from the behavior of Asians, based on adherence to Confucian philosophy.

Based on the analysis, it was revealed that cultures with a long-term orientation towards business relationships show greater commitment to work and hard work, and also value their business image.

Cultures with a short-term orientation are characterized by less interest in maintaining strong business ties and avoiding hard and painstaking work; representatives of such cultures rely more on receiving immediate benefits without making special efforts.

Thus, the results of this additional study generally confirmed the conclusions made by G. Hofstede.

Another theory that examines the differences between national cultures is the theory of the American culturologist E. Hirsch.

Communication always depends on how fully and adequately the interlocutors understand the information that is contained in the text, but remains literally unspoken, since it is assumed that it is generally known. This idea forms the basis of the theory of cultural literacy, which involves the formation of the necessary knowledge to build effective communication with speakers of other languages and representatives of other cultures.

Thus, the presence of background knowledge, which refers to the names of objects of material culture, historical facts, names of national and folk heroes associated with the values and customs of a particular people, their cultural traditions, is an indispensable condition for communication. The information in question depends to a large extent not just on a broad outlook, but primarily on general knowledge, which constitutes the specific phenomenon of cultural literacy.

A logical result of the creation of the theory of cultural literacy was the emergence of the “New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy,” which included idioms, phrases, names and events known to most Americans.

At the same time, according to Hirsch, much of the information is so specific that it is known only to experts in certain fields; another part is basic and well-known (for example, the names of animals), and therefore is not included in the dictionary of cultural literacy. Consequently, the vocabulary of cultural literacy is between general and specialized.

Since its inception, the concept of cultural literacy has generated interest and continues to attract the attention of scholars around the world. The value of the research conducted by E. Hirsch lies in the fact that he was able to highlight the customs, politics, and social life of the United States from the perspective of national culture. And the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, created by Hirsch, from the point of view of intercultural communication is a kind of textbook on interethnic communication.

Summarizing all of the above, it is worth noting that consideration of fundamental theoretical approaches based on cross-cultural research promotes awareness of the existence of differences between business cultures in modern business and, as a result, allows us to determine the basic strategies for building effective cross-cultural business interaction.

Communication, as an integral part of national culture, involves the use of ideas from one’s culture to encode information. Consequently, communicants entering into intercultural interaction should take into account the existing differences between cultures, which will significantly reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding due to incorrect interpretation of the transmitted message and make the communication process effective and efficient.

Cognitive foundations for the formation of a system of cultural concepts in management communication

A concept, as noted above, is a cognitive unit that is part of “the whole picture of the world reflected in the human psyche,” which presupposes a fairly large amount of knowledge related to one concept...

Cross-cultural management in international business

In the rest of the decade, when the topic of globalization became more popular, global research on cultures became more active. Projects from the 60s and 70s have grown into pre-historic programs, such as those of Hovstede, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck...

Cross-cultural dimension in international business

In 1998, the German concern Daimler entered into an alliance with Chrysler. In 1999, The Economist assessed the results of such an alliance: the flow of talented industrial designers and managers who had previously dreamed of working at Chrysler had sharply decreased...

Cross-cultural issues in international business

Today, despite the leaps and bounds of globalization and corporate principles common to global companies, the cultural characteristics of people in different countries differ quite greatly...

Cultural differences between organizations in different countries

Knowledge and ability to understand the cultural differences of organizations allows an international firm to successfully solve management problems using cultural tools. They boil down to the following: 1...

Geert Hofstede's model of national culture

National culture, forming a system of basic values and social stereotypes, predetermines different models of behavior from different countries, in seemingly absolutely similar situations...

Organizational structures

The basis of this management structure is the organization of work into working groups (teams)...

Organizational management structures and trends in their development

The basis of this management structure is the organization of work into working groups (teams). Its active use as an organization management structure began in the 80s...

Organic type of management structures

The basis of this structure is the organization of work into working groups (teams). The form of brigade organization is an ancient organizational form, just remember the workers' artels, but only since the 80s...

In the context of globalization, the problem of mutual understanding becomes especially acute and relevant. Integration processes at the international level in various spheres of life...

Building cross-cultural communications in international companies

Russian mentality and its influence on the development of the national school of management. Comparative management

The first empirical studies of organizational behavior in different countries showed its differences. Many researchers have pointed to the influence of cultural factors...

Improving communication networks in an organization using the example of KFC International Holdings

The basis for the theoretical justification of interpersonal communication is the theory of speech activity, owned by L.S. Vygotsky and A.N. Leontiev, which is considered from the point of view of the psychological foundations of behavioral theory...

Essence and characteristics of organizational management structures

The basis of this management structure is the organization of work into working groups (teams). The form of brigade organization of work is a fairly ancient organizational form; just remember the workers' artels...

Managing cross-cultural differences in modern corporations

In a study of differences in national cultures in the activities of IBM Corporation subsidiaries in 64 countries, conducted by Geert Hofstede in 1990, four parameters were compared: power distance, masculinity-femininity...

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution

higher professional education

"KUBAN STATE UNIVERSITY"

(FSBEI HPE "KubSU")

Department of World Economy and Management

COURSE WORK

Building cross-cultural communications in international companies

I've done the work

A.E. Rudakova

Scientific adviser,

Senior Lecturer,

Ph.D. econ. sciences,

E.Ya. Bratslavskaya

Krasnodar 2013

INTRODUCTION

1. COMMUNICATIONS AND NATIONAL CULTURE

1.1 The essence and distinctive features of cross-cultural communications in the comparative management system

1.2 Theories of cross-cultural communications by E. Hall, G. Hofstede,
E. Hirsha 1.3 Intercultural competence as a factor of successful cross-cultural communication

2. BUILDING EFFECTIVE CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES

2.1 Internal communications in international companies

2.2 Intra-company communications and communication barriers: the history of MODUL Service AB

2.3 Overcoming communication barriers and building an effective system of intra-company communications in international companies using the example of MODUL Service AB

CONCLUSION

LIST OF SOURCES USED

INTRODUCTION

cultural communication barrier internal

This work is devoted to the study and analysis of various features of the process of cross-cultural communications in international organizations.

The relevance of considering the problem of building an effective system of intra-company communications in international companies is due to the development of the globalization process, covering various spheres of social life and, as a consequence, the increasing number of interpersonal contacts between representatives of different cultures.

The purpose of this work is to determine the most significant features and characteristics of cross-cultural communications in modern business conditions.

The object of the study is the process of building an effective system of intra-company communications in international companies.

The subject of the research is methods and strategies for building cross-cultural communications in the modern business environment, as well as barriers that impede the establishment of effective intra-company interaction in international multinational corporations.

To achieve the goal of the course work, the following tasks were set:

reveal the essence and content of the concept of “cross-cultural communications”;

analyze the factors influencing the increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-cultural communications;

consider the main barriers preventing the creation of a system of intra-company communications in international companies;

analyze ways to increase the efficiency of the process of cross-cultural communications and determine the possibility of their application in practice in modern business conditions.

During the research process, comparative and analytical methods were used, as well as the study of monographic publications and articles.

The theoretical basis of the course work was the study of the peculiarities of constructing cross-cultural communications by Russian and foreign authors, among which we can note the works of R.D. Lewis, L.I. Grishaeva, S.E. Pivovarova, A.P. Sadokhina. When writing the work, textbooks, monographs, articles in scientific and periodicals were used.

The course work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of sources used.

The first chapter analyzes the relationship between the communication process and the characteristics of national culture. A definition of the concept of “cross-cultural communications” is given. The main theories of cross-cultural communications are considered. The factors of successful cross-cultural communication are determined.

The second chapter is devoted to exploring ways to improve the efficiency of the process of building cross-cultural communications in international companies.

In conclusion, conclusions are drawn about the advisability of taking into account the influence of national characteristics on cross-cultural communications in modern organizations, and recommendations are given for overcoming barriers to building effective intra-company communication in international companies

COMMUNICATIONS AND NATIONAL CULTURE

1 The essence and distinctive features of cross-cultural communications in the system of comparative management

In the context of globalization, the problem of mutual understanding becomes especially acute and relevant. Integration processes at the international level in various spheres of life, the expansion of official and unofficial contacts between different countries, high mobility of labor resources, the desire of modern society to join forces to solve global problems - all this requires the participation of representatives of different nationalities in the process of interpersonal interaction.

Adequate perception and correct interpretation of transmitted information becomes vitally necessary, which implies an ever-increasing interest in the problem of understanding, especially mutual understanding.

The increase in the number of international contacts, which means a clash of different national characteristics of behavior, values, traditions, gives rise to many problems that participants in intercultural communication encounter.

Each of the subjects of intercultural communication, entering into communication, has his own ideas about the world, has his own system of value orientations, determined by the culture to which he belongs, and different from the culture of the interlocutor. Each subject is the bearer of a set of socially significant stereotypes, beliefs and behavior patterns that directly influence the final result of the interaction process.

In order to understand each other, individuals, peoples, nations, cultures require, first of all, the ability to understand oneself, the willingness to understand the interlocutor, experience of interaction, communication skills, the ability to express one’s thoughts using various linguistic means. Therefore, the basis for building an effective dialogue between representatives of different cultures is the interlocutors’ possession of a culture of mutual understanding.

The problem of mutual understanding occupies an important place in the theory of intercultural communication, the purpose of which is to describe ways to achieve mutual understanding between representatives of different cultures, as well as factors that impede the successful construction of intercultural dialogue.

The term “intercultural communication” was first used by the American anthropologist and cultural scientist Edward Hall. In 1954, in collaboration with the American linguist George Trager, he identified intercultural communication (ICC) as a subject of scientific research.

The peculiarity of the emergence of ICC as an academic discipline is that it arose in connection with the need of American diplomats to establish effective contacts with representatives of various countries. The sphere of influence of American politics began to actively expand after World War II. It was then that representatives of US government circles realized that American diplomats did not enjoy much sympathy or recognition abroad. Knowing several languages, but not knowing the traditions, behavioral characteristics of representatives of a particular country, their value systems, they could not build effective and efficient interaction with representatives of different cultures.

In response to this situation, the Institute of International Affairs at the US State Department was created in 1946, with the goal of developing educational programs for the practical application of learning outcomes in international diplomacy.

Outstanding psychologists, anthropologists, and linguists, led by E. Hall, were recruited to work at the Institute of International Affairs. They needed to put their theoretical knowledge into practical form in such a way as to develop specific concepts for training personnel to work in an international environment. And in many ways this unique experiment turned out to be successful.

The result of the functioning of the Institute, which ceased to exist in 1956, was the monograph “The Silent Language” published by Hall in 1959, containing the main provisions characterizing the prospects for the application of the ICC discipline and which became the basis for subsequent scientific research and development in this area .

In his works, E. Hall connected the concepts of “culture” and “communication”. In addition, he abandoned the traditional study of individual cultures for anthropologists of that time in favor of gaining knowledge in certain cultural areas, namely those where the greatest differences between participants in the communication process can be expected.

It was the works of E. Hall that created the prerequisites for the practical application of classical theories of cultural anthropology in the study of interaction between representatives of different nations and determined the main goal of the ICC to organize effective interpersonal communication between representatives of various cultures.

There are various terms that characterize the concept of “intercultural communication”: “cross-cultural communication”, “interethnic communication”, “dialogue of cultures”, which indicates not fundamental differences in interpretation, but the search for a term adequate to the modern situation that most fully reflects the essence and objectives of this areas of research.

According to A.P. Sadokhin, ICC is a special form of communication between two or more representatives of different cultures, during which information and cultural values of interacting cultures are exchanged.

S.E. Pivovarov defines ICC as adequate mutual understanding of participants in a communicative act belonging to different national cultures.

HE. Nedoseka considers cross-cultural communication as a set of various forms of relations between individuals and groups belonging to different cultures. “The concept of “cross-cultural communication” in modern humanitarian knowledge.”

L.I. Grishaeva describes intercultural communication as interpersonal interaction between speakers of different cultures when they jointly solve common communicative tasks under certain conditions.
Summarizing all of the above, we can give the following definition: intercultural (cross-cultural) communication is the process of interaction between subjects of communication belonging to different national cultures for the purpose of exchanging information, regulated by the norms and traditions inherent in these cultures.

A distinctive feature of the ICC is its interdisciplinary nature. Having arisen in response to the urgent need to build effective relationships and organize fruitful cooperation between representatives of different nationalities, this discipline has incorporated the provisions of various sciences, the central ones of which are cultural anthropology, linguistics and psychology. Methodological approaches of other sciences: pedagogy, communication studies, sociology in the modern development of intercultural research are also gaining more and more weight, although they are aimed at considering certain aspects of ICC. It is important to note that the combination of various disciplines in creating the theory of ICC also depends on the national characteristics of teaching.

For example, in the USA, the dominant sciences are communication studies and cross-cultural psychology. German scientists give the palm to ethnology and linguistics. In France, sociology leads the system of intercultural disciplines. And in Russia, where ICC research began relatively recently, the leading role belongs to linguists.

Thus, the theory of intercultural communication is eclectic in nature, based on the provisions of various humanities. This interdisciplinary approach to the study of ICC allows us to understand how a person with his inherent diverse
sociocultural characteristics operates in conditions of intercultural interaction.

1.2 Theories of cross-cultural communications by E. Hall, G. Hofstede, E. Hirsch

The natural result was the emergence of various
cross-cultural research, which allows us to determine not only the differences, but also the similarities of cultures, the so-called cultural universals. And since communication is one of the ways of existence of national culture, the conclusions drawn as a result of the analysis subsequently formed the basis of various theories of intercultural communications. The most popular of them are E. Hall's theory of cultural context, G. Hofstede's theory of cultural dimensions and E. Hirsch's theory of cultural literacy. According to the American anthropologist E. Hall, one of the founders of the science of ICC, it is culture that dictates to a person what to pay attention to in the process of communication. He believes that the environment has a great influence on the message being conveyed. According to the scientist, communication is more than simple oral or written speech. Mechanical translation from one language to another takes into account only the meanings of individual words and the system of grammatical norms adopted in a given language, while the context may be lost or deliberately ignored.