An interesting misunderstanding happened in a meeting. When a Western manager was explaining the new organization with an organization chart which has a box with the department name on the top and also has several boxes connected to it, with the name of function and responsible person written in it, a Japanese member said that he wanted to add another task to the box in which his name was written. The Western manager didn't agree with it because he was not assigned to the task by this manager. But the Japanese member insisted that it was one of his tasks so it should be naturally added to the box and he misunderstood that the Western manager didn't want him to do the task.

Actually the manager just wanted to indicate that this organization chart was the wrong place to write down the task that was not given by him to the Japanese member. For the Western manager, the organization chart is the description of various functions in the department while, for the Japanese member, the same chart is the description of the hierarchy of members in the department.

If you consider the organization chart as the description of the department's functions, you can't add any task that has no relation to the department. In this sense, the Western manager was right. But if you consider the organization chart as the description of people's hierarchy, you can add any task done by person X to the box in which the name of person X is written because the task is only an attribute of a person. In this sense, the Japanese member was right.

The Western manager could recognize that the Japanese member misunderstood him but couldn't clearly understand how this Japanese member misunderstood him. So he couldn't make the Japanese member recognize the misunderstanding by explaining how he misunderstood. In this case it seemed that I was the only person who understood how the Japanese member misunderstood the Western manager because I was the only person who understood both the Western manager's perception of organization chart in general and that of Japanese members.

Here you can't find the difference between low context and high context. Both the Western manager and the Japanese member depend upon his own high context recognition about organization chart in general. Recently I don't agree with the opinion that Japanese people are high context (i.e. much implicit information hidden behind explicit communication) while Westerners are low context (i.e. most information explicitly expressed). I believe that Japanese simply have different context from Westerners. When we use the word "low context" or "high context", we unconsciously assume the different quantity of information buried in the context. But the context doesn't have quantity because the context means that different elements interweave. The difference between Western context and Japanese context is not the difference of the quantity of information contained in the context but the difference of the elements interweaved in it.

In the Japanese context, the organization chart shows the interrelationship of department members. The tasks of each member are written down there just for reference. In the Western context, it shows three difference abstraction levels regarding organization in general. An organization is the organization itself, i.e. on the top of organization chart there is the name of the organization itself. An organization has several functions, i.e. there are several boxes attached to the box on the top. Each function has several tasks, i.e. several tasks are written below each box that represents one function. Finally, the name of a person in charge of the function is written in the function box just for reference.

In Japanese context the organization chart in general has only one class, which is the relationship between people. In Western context it has at least three classes; the organization itself that has the function as its member and the function that has the task as its member. This difference already shows the difference between Japanese and Western context. Westerners automatically understand that one chart might have several classes. In this case, 'organization', 'function' and 'task'. On the other hand, Japanese people unconsciously understand that one chart should have only one class. In this case, 'people'. The names of function and tasks are written just for reference. From Japanese point of view, it is chaotic or even schizophrenic to see several classes on one and the same organization chart. Because it is just like a zoo where lions are exhibited next to an animal called 'mammal class' which is exhibited next to an animal called 'animal'. But it is natural and normal for Westerners. Here you can't find the difference of quantity. There is just the difference of perception about what the chart in general should show.

In addition, Westerners can't accept to write down the tasks given by the manager of organization Y on the chart of organization Z. On the other hand, Japanese can't accept to write down the name of person X on two different charts of organization Y and organization Z. Westerners can't accept to put a subclass under a wrong upper class. Japanese can't accept to put one person's name under several organizations. For Westerners the consistency of class hierarchy is the most important on the organization chart while for Japanese the singularity of each person is the most important on the organization chart. Westerners logically frame an organization chart by the extension of the definition of the organization. For Westerners the organization chart has the frame that is similar to the most outer frame of Venn diagram. For Japanese the organization chart has no logical frame. It is accidentally cut out from one imaginary organization chart that contains all organizations in the company. In this imaginary organization chart there is no redundancy in persons' names. The name of every person always appears only once on this imaginary chart. Westerner's rule of organization chart is "every subclass should always be put under the right upper class". Japanese rule of organization chart is "every person's name should always appear only once". Also here you can't see the difference of quantity. Westerners and Japanese just follow different rules.

I tried to show that the difference between Western and Japanese context is not quantitative, like the contrast between low context and high context, but qualitative, like different sets of rules. If Westerners wrongly consider the cultural difference as quantitative one and unilaterally ask Japanese to give more information explicitly, they can't bridge the difference forever. Both Westerners and Japanese have to explain their own set of rules as objectively as possible.