
Yes, that’s very true. Undoubtedly. This is certainly not a sandwich.
Yet again I was too impulsive to end up in that little prop misstep.
But what’s the idea behind this obvious mislabeling? And why do I and my blogpost seem so oddly fixated on sandwiches in general?
The answer is this: I want to introduce you to a topic that has been vividly living my head ever since the early days of our blog, one that personally fascinates me immensely. It’s about how people from different cultures and countries communicate with one another and what unbelievably fundamental differences are existing “out there” when it comes to exchanging sensitive matters or feedback. So what’s out there to be discovered? I mean, besides that more or less commonly known Sandwich method of delivering feedback?
The origin of my fascination lies in the stories of an Austrian friend who, many years ago, began studying and working at Edinburgh’s university. She would repeatedly supply me with vivid anecdotes in which her very Austrian way of collaborating collided wildly with how the Brits and Scots are used to communicate with each other. Her honest and humorous, yet very direct and unvarnished way of giving feedback caused quite a bit of “transnational perplexities”, since in the United Kingdom understatement is the way to go when it comes to “serving criticism”: often it’s kept under the hood. a secret. if it’s expressed then it’s done in extremely indirectly and in a very, very polite tone. To let the reader’s know: that’s something highly nerve-racking for us Austrians.
In Japan I had another “awakening”. There everything revolves around harmony. A direct “no” is often a general taboo. The maximum level of critical expression is to remain in silence. Something that is perfectly normal there, but something that is, once again for us Austrians, deeply unsettling and easily perceived as ignorant or lacking appreciation.
In India, so I was once told, critical feedback is prefered to be delivered in a very metaphorical way: by telling stories. Instead of confronting a person directly, a story is told whose moral reflects the current situation.
In France, on the other hand, such an approach would probably often lead to maximum outrage, since debating with one another there is seen as a sign of personal engagement and genuine interest and respect.
Isn’t it a terribly complex world we are living in? In my opinion it is – but that variety of so fundamentally different approaches is also something very beautiful for me.
And what about the U.S.? What’s the culture of delivering sensitive feedback there? A question for yet another curious conversation with Sarah.
2M3H+2F Vöcklabruck