Context Matters

Recently, I attended a training on cross cultural communication presented by Jason Harper as part of the Los Angeles County Bar Association training for mediators.

During the presentation, Mr. Harper discussed “low-context” and “high -context” communications in terms of relationships vs rights.

But first, some definitions:

The concepts of high context and low context refer to how people communicate in different cultures.  Differences can be derived from the extent to which meaning is transmitted through actual words used or implied by the context.

High context implies that a lot of unspoken information is implicitly transferred during communication.  People in a high context culture such as Saudi Arabia tend to place a larger importance on long-term relationships and loyalty and have fewer rules and structure implemented.

Low context implies that a lot of information is exchanged explicitly through the message itself and rarely is anything implicit or hidden.  People in low context cultures such as the UK tend to have short-term relationships, follow rules and standards closely and are generally very task-oriented.

 Thus, at the start of any dispute, one of the first and most important things to determine is how the other party communicates; high context or low context. Does the other person  place more emphasis on the relationship and its durability or on her rights and remedies under the law?  Which is more important: continuing the relationship or having a right vindicated?

Answering these questions will assist in determining how specific your communications must be. If the dispute is relationship based, then much can be left unsaid with a lot being read “in between the lines.” An example would be a dispute with a family member or a business with which you have been conducting business for decades. Because of your familiarity with each other, a lot can be left unsaid; your relationship is built on trust and it is important to each of you to continue the relationship. Thus, when you settle the dispute, a short-written contract or even an oral contract will suffice.

But, if the dispute is based on rights and remedies, then the communications  must be explicit, with all the terms put into writing.  An example would be a dispute with a company you have never done business with. There is no trust, no relationship and so everything must be explicitly stated, and any settlement must be written out in detail.

In sum, in resolving a dispute, the style of communication is important: is it based upon a relationship or a right? If the former, little will need to be said to resolve it; if the latter, be prepared to speak quite a lot and explicitly.

…. Just something to think about.


If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

Copyright 2018© Phyllis G. Pollack and, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Phyllis G. Pollack and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

By |2019-01-28T16:03:20+00:00February 15th, 2019|Research|0 Comments

About the Author:

Phyllis Pollack
Phyllis G. Pollack, Esq. the principal of PGP Mediation (, has been a mediator in Los Angeles, California since 2000. She has conducted over 1700 mediations. As an attorney with more than 35 years experience, she utilizes her diverse background to resolve business, commercial, international trade, real estate, employment and lemon law disputes at both the state and federal trial and state appellate court levels. Currently, she is the in­coming chair of State Bar of California’s ADR Committee. She has served on the board of the California Dispute Resolution Council (CDRC) (2012­2013), is a past president and past treasurer of the SCMA Education Foundation (2011­2013) and a past president (2010) of the Southern California Mediation Association (SCMA). Ms. Pollack received her BA degree in sociology in 1973 from Newcomb College of Tulane University and her JD degree from Tulane University School of Law in 1977. She is an active member of both the Louisiana and California bars. Pollack believes that it is never too late to mediate a dispute and recommends mediation over litigation as it allows the parties to decide their own solutions.