“May I Touch You?”
Haptics in the Multicultural Workplace
Jim Burwell
MLL625, Spring 1999
University of Maryland
Baltimore County
Abstract
Touching is both a human need and a universal behavior. Touching is a
form of nonverbal communication. With changing demographics and increasing
representation of non-White populations in the workforce, there will be increasing
diversity along gender, race and language lines in the workplace. Because each
culture has its own norms for touching behavior, the opportunity for
miscommunication in the workplace will increase.
According to Heslin and Alper (1983), the relations or situations in which
touching occurs can be categorized into five discrete types:
Functional/Professional, Social/Polite, Friendship/Warmth, Love/Intimacy and
Sexual Arousal. The rules for what is acceptable and appropriate for each
category are culturally determined. Touching behavior that is incongruent with
the relationship or not within culturally accepted limits results in negative feelings.
To avoid negative feelings, enhance communication and to create a
positive work environment, competency in the field of cross-cultural
communications is needed. Culturally appropriate training for employees, not just
managers, is seen as one key to improved communications. Another is to
integrate an awareness and knowledge of cultural differences, and respect for
those differences, into the corporate culture.
Introduction
What is appropriate touching in a culturally diverse workplace? For most
people, touch is a necessary element of human interaction. The need to touch
and to be touched is defined by our human nature. Yet, in the United States,
touching in the workplace has become a matter of civil liberties and litigation. The
law and the courts have defined what touching is permissible in the workplace
and, to a larger extent, what is forbidden. Finally, cultural values define what is
acceptable touching as a means of nonverbal communication. The problem with
cultural definitions of acceptable touching lies in the cultural diversity existent in
the workplace. Simply put, not everyone in the workplace applies the same rules.
This article looks briefly at the changing workforce in the United States. It
then reviews salient literature on the subject of touching, with a major focus on
the work of Heslin and Alper (1983). Next, it looks at how their findings might be
useful in investigating issues of touch in the multicultural workplace. Finally, it
recommends an approach to lessen the possibility of nonverbal
miscommunication.
For our purposes, touch is defined as “to come into physical contact with
someone. Haptics is defined as the study of how we use touch in
communication. (Chen & Starosta, 1997).
A Review of the Literature
According to the Department of Labor’s 1987 report “Workforce 2000:
Work and Workers for the 21st Century,” the American workforce will change
dramatically by the year 2000.
1. Throughout the 1990s, immigrants, women and minorities will account
for 85 percent of the net growth in the labor force.
2. By the year 2000, women will account for more than 47 percent of the
workforce.
3. By the end of the 1990s, African Americans will make up 12 percent of
the workforce, Hispanics will make up 10 percent, and Asians, Pacific
Islanders and Native Americans will make up 4 percent.
Henderson (1994) reported that between 1980 and 1990 the number of
female workers increased from 45.5 million to 56.6 million, a 24.4 percent
increase. The number of male workers grew from 61.5 million to 68.2 million, an
increase of only 10.9 percent.
Looking at these figures another way shows the 1990 U.S. population to
be:
199.7 million European Americans
30.0 million African Americans
22.4 million Hispanics
7.3 million Asian/Pacific Islanders
1.0 million Native Americans
These demographics make clear that the workforce is changing in the
United States. Although European Americans continue to be the dominant
culture group, there will be increasing diversity in the workforce along gender,
cultural and linguistic lines.
In an early publication on touching and the human significance of the skin,
Ashley Montagu (1971) wrote, “As we have seen, in our very brief survey,
different cultures vary in both the manner in which they express the need for
tactile stimulation and the manner in which they satisfy it. But the need is
universal and is everywhere the same, though the form of its satisfaction may
vary according to time and place.”
Touching is a form of nonverbal communication. According to Chen and
Starosta (1997), nonverbal communication is both culture-bound and ambiguous.
Unlike verbal language, “nonverbal communication is so complicated that
scholars still have never been able to devise a set of rules that would govern it.”
The authors go on to say that “nonverbal behaviors are dictated by the
communicator’s culture” and “culture determines the appropriate times to display
nonverbal behaviors, emotions in particular.”
Heslin and Alper (1983) wrote, “Touching implies interpersonal
involvement, but the meaning of that involvement can range from affirmation to
‘put down’.” It is complicated by social norms regarding who has permission to
touch whom and what is considered to be an appropriate context for such
behavior.” To quote these authors, “If touching a friend is normative for a culture,
then doing it is not an invasion of privacy. But if it is not normative, then it may be
a gesture of greater bonding or familiarity than the recipient desires.”
Relationships that involve touch are categorized by these authors into five
kinds, as follows:
(1) Functional/Professional
In this relationship, the touching is done in order to do something to
the recipient, such as a doctor touching a patient or a barber
touching a customer.
(2) Social/Polite
Touching in this situation is done to acknowledge the humanity of
both parties. A typical gesture is the handshake, but what is most
appropriate in a given setting varies culturally.
(3) Friendship/Warmth
Touching in this category is less formal than Social/Polite and may
be misinterpreted as indicating love and/or sexual attraction. It is an
area of great variability from one culture to another.
(4) Love/Intimacy
Touches that convey these feelings must stem from an appropriate
relationship if the touch is not to create a disturbance.
(5) Sexual Arousal
This kind of touching is pleasant because of the sexual meaning
and stimulation it conveys. It can also be frightening and arouse
anxiety.
It is the position of Heslin and Alper that the greatest unease is associated
with the touch relationships of Friendship/Warmth as they are less formal and
subject to greater misinterpretation. To quote, “…it is in the areas of
Friendship/Warmth that the greatest cross-cultural variability occurs. The
differences in managing Friendship/Warmth touching from culture to culture
reflect the differences among cultures in dealing with the potential of illicit or
unsanctioned sexuality.”
In addition, Heslin and Alper find issues of status and dominance in
nonverbal communication. Specifically, there is a greater tendency for higher
status persons to initiate touch with lower status persons than the reverse, for
older persons to initiate touch with younger people than vice versa, and for more
touching between women than between men. Accordingly, the authors state, “A
person who initiates touch, then, would be seen as having (1) the status that
gives permission to touch, (2) the courage and initiative to exercise that status,
and (3) the kind of warm personality that would motivate him or her to express a
bonding feeling.”
There is evidence indicating that even casual touch from a stranger, which
an employer or employee may well be, can be a positive rather than a negative
and can induce a feeling of well being. (Heslin and Alper, 1983) But it has to be
within culturally acceptable limits and not be incongruent with the intimacy/social
relationship of the communicators. The theory is that touching is a bonding act.
Therefore touching another person without permission or invitation or explanation
results in negative reactions.
Heslin and Alper’s conclusions of particular relevance to this article are:
1. “Touch implies a bond between the toucher and recipient.”
2. “The major variance in responses to touching is due to the
degree to which the touching is congruent with the intimacy of
the relationship between the two people.”
3. “To the extent that a person feels able to control interpersonal
situations, he or she will be made less anxious by an
unexpected bonding gesture such as touch.”
In summary, the population of the United States and therefore the
workforce itself is becoming dramatically more culturally diverse along gender,
race and linguistic lines. The need to touch and to be touched is universal.
Touching may engender positive or negative feelings in the communicants. The
rules for nonverbal communications are ambiguous and are complicated by
culturally variant social norms regarding who may touch whom and when.
Discussion
Heslin and Alper view Friendship/Warmth situations as the greatest area of
unease because this is the area most fraught with cross-cultural variability. I
suggest that the greatest cause of unease in the workplace is the blurring of the
lines between Heslin and Alper’s relational/situational categories. This blurring of
the lines results in incongruity between the relationship and the touch.
It is usual to find elements of the first three of Heslin and Alper’s relational
categories in the workplace. For example, a Functional/Professional relationship
exists during training, when touching is required for demonstration purposes. The
training could be carried out by a manager or team leader or a trainer and given
to subordinates and newly hired workers. Social/Polite relationships are the norm
in the workplace. It is not unusual for greetings to occur daily, even several times
during a workday, and may involve handshakes, hugs, slaps on the back and
high fives or bows, depending on the cultural norms. Friendship/Warmth relations
as well are typical in the workplace as people who work together must
necessarily spend a lot of time with each other. Common interests are identified
and a history is shared. Friendships are formed among the members of the work
community.
Love/Intimacy and Sexual Arousal relations are not common in the
workplace. They may develop between coworkers, or managers and
subordinates, but the touching associated with those relations is not typically a
part of the workplace environment.
In a multicultural workforce, the opportunity for crossing lines of
relationships and cultural lines grows exponentially with the number of cultures
present. Acceptable touching behavior within each category of relations will vary
according to the communicants’ culture.
Issues of power, status and dominance enter into the equation as well.
Managers are persons of higher status; i.e., more dominant in the workplace. As
such, they may feel freer to touch those in a lower status, specifically their
employees. This touching by a higher status person may make the receiver
uncomfortable if the receiver’s culture does not include touching by higher status
persons. Further the employee may feel insufficient interpersonal situational
control to display an ambivalent or rejecting attitude toward the touch even
though it is incongruent with the relationship.
This higher status person in the United States is likely to be from the
White culture of middle America. The crossing of relational and cultural lines is
most likely unintentional, although not always, and done out of ignorance of the
recipient’s cultural rules regarding such behavior. Furthermore, there exists a
wide range of touching behavior in American culture, even within the norms
associated with it, due to individuation. Imagine how difficult it is for managers
from this culture to understand and interpret the touching behavior of cultures
other than their own.
Complicating matters is the knowledge that haptics is not a laboratory
science. Touching behavior occurs in the real world where it is part of a complex
communications web that includes proxemics, chronemics, and kinisecs to name
just a few. Even oculesics, the study of messages sent by the eyes, is part of the
equation. According to Anderson (1997), since eye contact has been called an
“invitation to communicate,” its cross-cultural variation is an important
communication topic.
The following example demonstrates just how easily an intercultural
encounter might happen.
As John, a White male manager, approached Chao in her
office, he could see she was hard at work on their project.
As Senior Accountant, he had asked Chao to start work on
the project last month, telling her he would meet with her
regularly to discuss her progress. She was a new staff
accountant, having been there only about a month, and he
wanted to be sure she was progressing well. Chao, who
was Chinese, had been hired as a result of a new program
intended to increase the diversity of the workforce so it was
more representative of its clientele.
“Good morning, Chao” said John. “I hope your project is
going well.” He laid his hand on her shoulder in his usual
friendly manner, leaving it there as a sign of his good will.
He had found over the years that employees are reassured
by a touch as a gesture of his confidence in them. He knew
the best way was to get good people working for you and
then to let them know that you valued their contribution.
This was his fourth meeting with Chao and he was
impressed with her ability, even though she seemed quite
shy, always moving slightly away when he approached her
and never looking directly at him when he spoke to her. It
was his way to look people straight in the eye when he
talked so they could see his sincerity and see how
important he felt their conversation was. He wondered why
Chao always looked away, as though she had something to
hide.
“This won’t take long today, Chao. I just need to see how
you are doing,” said John as he sat down next to her. It was
a little crowded in her work area but the meeting would not
last long. There was enough room, even if his long legs did
bump against Chao’s knees a lot under the table. John
reviewed her work so far and could see that she was doing
an excellent job. He was pleased Chao was working out so
well.
“Chao, you have an excellent start on this. I can see why
you came so highly recommended, and I look forward to our
working together on many more projects.” As John stood to
leave, he again laid his hand on her shoulder and thanked
her.
Later, as Chao was leaving for the day, she approached
John in his office and said, “Sir, I am resigning and I am
giving you two week’s notice. I have accepted a job
elsewhere.”
Completely surprised, John could only ask “Why? I thought
you liked it here and we were working well together? If you
leave, we will not be able to meet our deadline for the
project. I was counting on you.”
“Yes sir, but I believe that you would be happier with another
employee, and I will be able to use my skills more fully with
my new employer, who is Chinese also,” Chao said.
In the story of John and Chao, John miscommunicated through his lack of
awareness of Chao’s culture. In Chao’s view, each of John’s behaviors had a
different interpretation. John’s hand on her shoulder for more than a few
seconds, his legs brushing against her knees under the table, and his extended
eye contact all made her extremely uncomfortable. First, John’s touching
behavior was incongruent with their professional relationship. In Chao’s
worldview, bosses and employees do not touch. Next, even if John and Chao
had a relationship congruent with touching, the workplace is an inappropriate
place to display such behavior under any circumstances. Finally, extended eye
contact is not appropriate from a boss to an employee. It is avoided in Chao’s
culture as a sign of respect and deference. Employees are of a lower status an,
in Chao’s culture, do not make eye contact, preferring instead to avert their eyes
when speaking with their bosses.
Because of this miscommunication, Chao felt a loss of interpersonal
situational control. Her culturally learned behavior prevented her from confronting
John so her only available course of action was to leave. As a result, John lost a
good employee and missed an important deadline.
The implications of my findings
People bring to the workplace a whole range of life issues. Immigrants
are struggling with issues of economic survival and acculturation in all aspects of
their lives. In many cases, this includes a limited ability to communicate in the
language of their new country. Women face changing gender roles, requiring
adaptations in many facets of their lives. This may include newly found
independence, single parenthood and economic insecurity.
It would be simplistic to believe that awareness of the various cultures in
the workplace is not needed so long as the managers treat all employees alike
without discrimination. This ignores the basic fact that communication is two-way.
The meaning of nonverbal communication is determined by the cultural norms of
both communicants, not just the initiators. Miscommunication will occur if this is
not acknowledged. The affected individuals cannot be counted on to speak up in
the way middle American culture might expect. The fact is, many employees feel
unable to control interpersonal situations in the workplace, as the job is a matter
of economic survival and thus they remain silent in the face of incongruent
touching behavior.
Conclusion/Recommendations
It is important to remember that touching is a universal need and a
universal behavior. It is not easy to understand the rules for filling that need when
communicating across cultures. To become competent in the field of crosscultural communication, particularly in a nonverbal way, requires many attributes.
It requires the desire to be effective in cross-cultural communication. It requires
recognition that the rules are different for different cultures. It requires being
open-minded. To use an American adage, it requires the ability to walk in
another’s shoes for awhile to change your perspective. It requires training.
There are tools for determining the right training. Needs assessment,
profiling and clear definitions of objectives are three. The training should not be
for “management” only. We have seen that communication is a two-way street so
both parties to communications should be trained. Training together would give
all members of the workforce the opportunity to participate in the learning
exercises. Of course decisions on training structure and methodology must
consider the learning styles of the students in order to be appropriate.
But the training alone is not sufficient. A corporate culture that requires
competence in cross-cultural communication is essential. A way must be found to
integrate awareness and knowledge of cultural differences and respect for those
differences into the corporate culture. By being aware of the differences in
cultural norms in the workplace, an employer can create an environment where
all are comfortable, accepted and productive.
References
Anderson, P. A., (1997). “Cues of Culture: The Basis of Intercultural
Differences in Nonverbal Communication.” In L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter,
Intercultural Communication: A Reader (8th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1997). Foundations of Intercultural
Communication. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Department of Labor, (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the
21st Century
Fernandez, J. P. (1991). Managing a Diverse Work Force: regaining the
competitive edge. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.
Henderson, G. (1994). Cultural Diversity in the Workplace: Issues and
Strategies. Westport, CT: Praeger
Heslin, R., & Alper, T. (1983). “Touch: A Bonding Issue.” In J. M.
Weimann and R. P. Harrison (Eds), Nonverbal Communication. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage
Montagu, A. (1971) Touching: the human significance of the skin. New
York: Columbia University Press
Thiederman, S. (1990). Bridging Cultural Barriers for Corporate Success:
How to Manage the Multicultural Work Force. New York: Lexington Books.