The third ‘aha’ moment at Eric Law’s diversity workshop yesterday was engagement in low context and high context communication styles. This is based on Edward T. Hall‘s book, Beyond Culture, written from the perspectives of anthropology and psychology.
People working with low context are individual-oriented, rely on explicit coding of information being communicated, are less aware of contexts, use linear logic, adjust to their new situation quickly (no need for contextualisation). Conflict may occur because of violations of individual expectations create conflict potentials. These people deal with conflict by revealing their dissatisfaction with a direct confrontational attitude. They focus on fact finding, action, solution and open, direct strategies.
People working with high context are group oriented. They rely heavily on the physical context or the share context of the transmitter and receiver. Very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. They use spiral logic. They take time for contexting in the new situation. Conflict may occur because of violations of collective expectations. They deal with conflict by concealing. They use indirect, non-confrontational attitude, focusing on face-saving, relationship, ambiguous, indirect strategies.
As I worked with this material I realised that I am closer to high context than low context. I get annoyed by people who don’t bother to listen. But I’m equally annoyed by people who take ages to get to the point. And I probably get under the skin of both.
I think Im the “high” type.
I wonder if this has any link to Myers-Briggs personality types. It sounds awefully similar to the Intuitive (N) vs Sensor (S) distinction. For reference Im an INTP. Its been an observation of mine that the emerging church has a higher proportion of “N”s than a normal population sample.