TOP

Seeming Unwise While Being Wise: The Case of Language Expertise

Jan 15
Posted by Monica Marcel in Cross-cultural, e-learning, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence, Working with...

Why do we assume someone is not as smart or capable, when they have an accent?

At LCW we know that accents can be challenging to work with, and clients often report this as one of their greatest challenges in global work. But this new research from the University of Chicago points to something even deeper —that we often decide someone is not smart or competent, based solely on the fact that they might speak an accent we find challenging.

So what? The business cost of such a bias can be huge. Imagine you are a manager who intentionally avoids people who have accents when making selection for her team, thinking it’s not worth the trouble to include them. While we understand the inclination, this decision also means that the team may likely miss out on some amazing brainpower packaged with those accents—brainpower that might just bring the innovation and breakthroughs that the team needs to reach and even exceed its goals.

Or, imagine an executive overseas who surrounds himself with an advisory team who speaks English that is easy for him to understand. Though convenient for him at the time, this executive is also eliminating from his talent pool those accented geniuses who may offer the greatest insight or intelligence. The University of Chicago research shows it’s human nature for us to sometimes assume that someone with an accent is less intelligent, so the in a globalized world, we need to work to overcome this bias or else deal with the consequences of missed opportunities.

Everyone speaks even their native language with an accent that someone, somewhere is likely to find hard to understand. So what do we do about it?

The skill-set requires getting comfortable working with accents, managing the psychological distance and bias that accents introduce—by focusing on relationship-building and listening past the accent. Check out our virtual toolbox of solutions here, including some tips for “Listening Past the Accent”.

 

Read More
Tags:
Comments (1)
TOP

What if men had to adapt to women in the workplace?

Dec 18
Posted by Rebecca Parrilla in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence

My partner Sue emailed me a link to a NYT article this week, and prefaced it with: “Look, the wage gap has a cultural component! (Of course.) Very interesting story!”  Well I finally had a few minutes to read it and interesting it was.  It touches on various things, but among them is culture – which many people are often afraid to touch for fear of being seen as someone who sees women as “less equal” than men.  I tend to get extremely excited when culture is brought up as a component of the (complex) reasons behind why a male/female wage gap still exists in the U.S.  Culturally learned behavior and perceptions are real, and to ignore them is to consciously decide they either don’t matter or don’t exist (both of which are an insult to both men and women).  In particular, this article mentions that many (though of course not all) women have learned, explicity or implicitly, that speaking up and assertively asking for things like raises and higher pay can be perceived as “unladylike” and can be seen as pushy or arrogant.  And therefore in many cases, women may not even realize that they are “allowed” to ask!  In fact, the article talks about how being assertive or being percieved as not nice enough or not friendly enough (relative to how women “should” be) sometimes actually results in negative consequences for women, like not being offered a job because you weren’t likable enough.  Many if not most of these cases may be due to unconscious bias, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it happens.  The point of the article is that “the good news is that all of these things [assertiveness in negotiating salary and raises] can be learned.”  It cites various entities and individuals who are teaching these skills to girls and young women.  But something about this just doesn’t sit all that well with me.  And I think it’s this: teaching women to be more assertive and agressive in speaking up and asking for stuff is all well and good, and it will certainly help women be more successful in a man’s world – but it’s yet another example of how women must adapt to men to get ahead.  Why is it never the other way around?

Imagine this alternate world: women hold the vast majority of leadership and powerful positions in business, education, and government.  Men are paid 77 cents on every woman’s dollar. It’s found that part of the reason for this is that men tend to be too blunt and too forceful when they ask for what they want, and aren’t warm enough in their interpersonal interactions.  Studies have found that employers generally find this type of behavior to be in opposition to teamwork, effectiveness, and success, and so men tend to get hired less often.  How do we close this gender wage gap? Well here’s the good news - humility, collaborativeness, and warmth can be learned!  Let’s go around the country and teach men when they’re young how they can work on their indirectness and modesty skills.

In that world, this solution might work – at least on the surface – because the reality there is that most places that hire people are run by women.  But wouldn’t many men feel a little odd, a little uncomfortable, or even a lot uncomfortable – acting in ways that don’t feel natural to them? Would they be able to be their full selves at work, and make their best contribution, by acting as someone other than themselves?   Maybe some of them would, but I’d venture to guess most of them wouldn’t.  And that’s what bugs me about this article.  When we start leveraging and embracing everyone’s styles – when we see the benefits of competition, collaboration, assertiveness, modesty, intensity, warmth, pushiness, and cooperation – and not systematically penalize one side over the other – we can explode our self-created limits and create and think in ways that we never thought possible.

Read More
Comments (5)
TOP

(The Right) Diversity Training Works –The Impact of Cross-Cultural Training

May 17
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence, Training

You may have seen a series of articles and blog posts regarding the value of diversity training recently, most of which refer to a study which was done by scholars Frank Dobbin, Alexandra Kalev, and Erin Kelly. The gist of these articles is that diversity training is “a waste of time” – and completely ineffective at preventing workplace conflicts, mitigating misunderstandings, or preventing lawsuits. The Bregman article starts off with an anecdote about an HR manager whose company is being sued, lamenting the fact that their company was doing any kind of diversity training at all, since the training has somehow failed to prevent the offending behavior, and the subsequent lawsuit. Interestingly, the HR manager and the author seem to be blaming the training for the lawsuit. The Suzanne Lucas article lists 5 ways to improve communication in the office (ostensibly while ignoring cultural differences or acknowledging any differences at all):

• Don’t look to be offended.¹
(I’m not sure I would suggest to workers that their experience of being offended is a result of their actively looking for it.)
• Treat everyone nicely and fairly.
(This presumes that everyone has the same interpretation of ”nice” and “fair”)
• Look to yourself first- it’s possible to find discrimination around every corner, even if it doesn’t exist. (I don’t think asking “is my coworker equally rude to everyone?” is necessarily the place to start when confronted with behavior that you interpret as discriminatory.)
• Report truly discriminatory behavior to HR or the chain of command
(Given the previous recommendations that one should “not look to be offended”, and that it’s possible “to find discrimination in every corner, even if it doesn’t exist”, how am I supposed to know if it’s “truly discriminatory”)²

What these articles have in common is that their proposed alternative solutions (since diversity training theoretically doesn’t work) focus on “the individual”: Don’t reinforce categories, and treat everyone the same…but as a unique individual. Focus on your own behavior, and your own thinking. The apparent measuring stick for success? The presence or absence of lawsuits.
According to Peter Bregman, acknowledging categories just leads to more conflict, so he proposes “communication training” as a viable and more effective alternative:

“We decided to put all managers through communication training. It still fulfilled the requirement of the lawsuit. But it did something more. People learned to listen and speak with each other — no matter the difference — which is the key to creating a vibrant and inclusive environment. As it turns out, it’s also the key to preventing lawsuits. The communication trainings I led for Bedia were ten years ago and they haven’t been sued since.”³

The obvious question, of course, is what exactly is “communication training”? The author doesn’t explain. It leads me to wonder how people are being taught to communicate? And in what cultural contexts is that communication style the norm? Given that we’re ignoring differences, are we also ignoring differences in communication styles? It’s interesting to attribute a 10-year absence of lawsuits to training done 10 years ago.

The study that all of these articles are referencing is a little bit dated (2007; a more current study by Dobbin can be found here), and after careful review, this particular study cannot be interpreted as stating: “Diversity Training doesn’t work.” I don’t doubt the good intentions of Bregman and Lucas, but I think it can be said that some of the study data has been extrapolated without interpreting the results comprehensively. So what does the study say? This is the paragraph that sums it up for me:

“There are two caveats about training. First, it does show small positive effects in the largest of workplaces, although diversity councils, diversity managers, and mentoring programs are significantly more effective. Second, optional (not mandatory) training programs and those that focus on cultural awareness (not the threat of the law) can have positive effects.”

In other words, the study says that cross-cultural training does have a measurable impact… In other words, it can work. Now, the study does indicate that mandatory, compliance-based, legal/lawsuit-inspired training rarely, if ever produces the desired results. And in our experience, this kind of legal/compliance-based diversity training can definitely make people defensive, and worsen a situation, which I think is what Bregman and Lucas are recounting in their own experiences. This is why anyone serious about behavioral change should avoid diversity training that is rooted solely in compliance and superficialities. We have found extraordinary benefit for organizations who are serious about good training, provided it is linked to a comprehensive strategy, that it is consistent with senior leadership’s messages and delivered first to the most senior leaders- Training that it is modified appropriately for each participant’s level, role, the overall organizational culture, and that it is designed for skill-building rather than just awareness-building in working with differences. At LCW we call this approach “building cultural agility” or “developing intercultural competence”.

In our reading of the study, the headline “diversity training doesn’t work” is not a great interpretation of the conclusions, and a little misleading in our opinion. We think it is also erroneous in its assertion that glossing over differences, and focusing on commonalities will always lead to better results for an organization. The orientation towards cultural differences communicated in these articles is called minimizationª. Sometimes, it is certainly advantageous to focus on the commonalities between people, particularly if you know nothing about their specific culture(s). However, it’s quite possible to understand how another person is likely to be different from you based on their cultural communities, but not stereotype them based on them (while at the same time not ignoring the commonalities). Understanding these differences doesn’t mean that you have to put someone in a box; it means that you understand the dozens of cultural “boxes” that people have lived in during their lives, and how those experiences have affected what they believe, how they act, and what they value, in reference to yourself. We can follow the golden rule, but following that rule doesn’t work if others don’t want to be treated, or communicated with the same way that we do.

To summarize, cross-cultural training does help develop intercultural competence, and it can have a positive, lasting, and measurable impact, depending on the type of training, its goals, and its methodology.

 

¹Italicized sentences in parentheses are my own responses.

² Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57425771/why-you-should-stop-attending-diversity-training/

³ Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-we-work/201203/diversity-training-doesnt-work

ª“Minimization” as defined within the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (3)
TOP

Hunger Games: Why Didn’t Some Readers Notice Black Characters?

Mar 29
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence

By now, you’ve likely heard or read about the controversy surrounding the “Hunger Games”, and some viewers’ reactions to the casting.  Quite a few people expressed disdain, dislike, or general consternation via social media with the fact that some of the characters that they had envisioned as white, were portrayed by black actors and actresses… though in reality, the casting decisions reflect the actual descriptions of the characters in the book.  The feeling from these viewers seems to be that the casting was done in a manner to consciously include actors and actresses of color, as some sort of Hollywood affirmative action program.  I don’t dispute that the reactions are extremely distasteful, but at the same time most of the viewers in question appear to be in high school, so we can at least point to age and immaturity as minor contributing factors.

I think what really struck me personally (as I’m unfortunately not shocked at overt racism on the internet anymore), is that these readers didn’t notice that the characters were black.  The book clearly spells it out (albeit briefly), and an interview with the author in 2011 specifically states that these characters are African-American.  So the readers read the passage, they understood and comprehended everything else that was going on in the story, but somehow their image of what the main characters looked like in their mind’s eye didn’t gel with what they were reading.  It didn’t even register!  Ugly reactions to their appearance aside, how can it be that a person wouldn’t notice something like this?

I think part of the answer lies in unconscious bias, but also in our own orientations toward cultural differences.  People who are oriented in the monocultural stages of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (or what we at LCW refer to in shorthand as the DMIS) may see differences and assign value judgments to them (Defense/Reversal), or be incapable of seeing or acknowledging differences at all (Denial).  People may be oriented in monocultural stages for a number of reasons, but lack of experience with those different from themselves, or having experiences limited to stereotypical portrayals in the media can be two contributing factors.  Being punished for noticing and verbalizing differences when we’re young, or being taught that our own culture is superior by our elders can also play a role. These may not be intentional lessons in racism or discrimination, but clearly though, there is some unconscious bias occurring here.

There is no other explanation for completely glossing over a literal description of a character… though it’s not difficult to think of white people as “normal” or “default” when looking at the statistics on minorities on Television and in the movies. If you haven’t seen some of the “bias” videos on YouTube, such as Michael Shermer’s 2005 TED talk, it’s highly recommended.  Another great tool is Harvard’s “Project Implicit”, a series of assessments to help show you your unconscious biases –and as it turns out, I have biases too, according to the tests and my own honest reflections.  We all do, in reality.  Understanding and working through our unconscious biases, and discovering where those biases come from, is a key component of developing intercultural competence.

 

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

The Assumption of Difference…or the Possibility of Difference?

Feb 27
Posted by Randall Stieghorst in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence, Training

In our work with intercultural competence, we focus on helping others understand that our cultural backgrounds impact the way we think and see the world. People from different cultural groups (be those national cultures or sub-cultures within our own country) logically bring a different life experience to most every interaction.  There are certain times and situations, however, where someone who has a background very different from our own may actually be quite similar to us in their way of thinking and acting.  It is for this reason that when we talk about our own intercultural competence, we underline the importance of understanding that there is the potential for divergent ways of thinking and acting…but that it is a possibility and not necessarily a guarantee.

The assumption of difference, a core tenet of intercultural competence, should sometimes be re-framed as the potential for difference. It is indeed interculturally competent to walk into a conference room and anticipate that the cultural background of your colleagues is likely to contribute to different perspectives, attitudes, and expectations. It is also interculturally competent, however, to anticipate a level of commonality in objectives, interests, and definitions of professionalism.  Commonalities are what allow us to get along quickly and easily – to build common ground and to give the benefit of the doubt when we are unsure what is driving someone’s approach. Acknowledging the possibility of difference is what allows us to leverage our intercultural competence to move beyond interpersonal conflict when it arises.

This reliance on commonalities coupled with the expectation for the potential for difference is especially valuable for a group of professionals who have already developed some form of intercultural competence, either through a concerted self-development effort, or through the more passive learning that accompanies having spent significant time adapting to one or more different cultures. In such an environment, the potential for difference exists, but the likelihood that those differences will be disruptive to the process at hand is much lower.  Knowing when and where to expend the time and effort to seek out and adapt to below-the-surface cultural differences is the sign of well-developed intercultural competence.

Ignoring both the assumption of difference and the possibility of difference reflects a less-developed understanding of culture and its impact, and will undoubtedly lead to problems with interpersonal communication and relationships in a culturally diverse environment. So the next time you gather with a new team, or an old team, anticipate similarities…and anticipate the potential for difference.

 

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

“I’ve Lived All Over the World… What do you Mean I’m Not Interculturally Competent?”

Feb 14
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence, Training

LCW administers hundreds of Intercultural Developmental Inventory® assessments and coaching sessions every year.  We’re big believers in the power of the IDI to help guide growth along the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS).  The amount of research that has been devoted to demonstrate the statistical validity of the IDI® makes it an ideal tool to use when working with organizations that want a concrete ROI for their intercultural competence/global diversity and inclusion efforts.  Given that we often deliver debrief sessions to  participants at the executive-level,  it is not uncommon to find ourselves coaching former expats and other “global nomads”, many of whom have lived all over the world, immersed in many different national and organizational cultures for years at a time.

It may be surprising, but on a fairly regular basis, when taking the IDI® these global nomads will test in minimization as their Developmental Orientation; that is, they tend to most often navigate cultural differences by focusing on commonalities, often at the expense of recognizing and understanding differences.  People in minimization will sometimes be able to successfully navigate cultural differences, but in general their “blind spot” is that they generally view others as having the same motivations/needs as themselves.  Many of these participants are surprised by their score, and often there is a significant gap between their Developmental, and Perceived Orientations.  But how can this be?  If someone has vast global experience living and working among people from different cultures, then how can they lack the necessary skills for intercultural competence?

The answer has 3 considerations:

  1. Just because a person has lived in a culture(s) that’s not their own, doesn’t mean they have interacted primarily with that local culture.  Many expats and executives of global organizations choose to associate primarily with other individuals that are more culturally similar to themselves, rather than to immerse themselves in the unfamiliar local culture.
  2. Minimization can sometimes be an effective strategy.  After all, there are some universal human needs, and over-focusing on the commonalities doesn’t mean that you’ll get it wrong every time.  That being said, you will miss opportunities to craft truly cross-cultural solutions if you don’t pay attention to the differences as well.
  3. People can become adept at mimicking another culture’s behaviors, without understand the larger institutions of influence, and underlying values that guide those behaviors.  Developing intercultural competence entails understanding not just the “what” and “how”, but also the “why”.

In the modern globally-interconnected economy, more and more organizations understand the business case for an interculturally competent C-suite, managerial staff, and workforce.  But just because your organization has a globally-experienced staff, don’t think that these staff will automatically have the skills needed to effectively navigate cultural differences.  IDI® coaching and other training efforts can pay huge dividends by helping your organization’s personnel develop the skills they need to understand the values and behaviors of workers and managers in non-home-country-locations, and increasingly, understand their culturally diverse coworkers and business partners domestically as well.

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (3)
TOP

Happy Holidays? Or Minimizing Christmas?

Dec 19
Posted by smccuistion in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence

I love this time of year. Sometimes, I think I’d be perfectly happy if the year ran from October 30 to January 2 then started all over again. All of the celebrations and fun and joy that seem to happen at this time of year are simply unmatched the rest of the year, in my opinion.
However, this time of year can cause people a lot of angst when greeting others. In the United States, where we worry so much about being politically correct, we’ve moved to a greeting of “Happy Holidays,” hoping that we won’t offend anyone and that our blanket statement will cover any holiday that a person might celebrate. Now I personally like this greeting, because I think it’s more inclusive. I celebrate Christmas, so saying “Happy Holidays” instead of just randomly wishing someone “Merry Christmas” actually makes me think and realize that not everyone celebrates the same holidays I do. It allows me to avoid possible gaffes and embarrassing situations where I might wish someone the best for a holiday they don’t celebrate, which could unintentionally make them feel diminished or excluded.
Having said that, I also think we’ve gone overboard with it in some contexts in the US; that is, not calling things what they are in order not to offend. For instance, Christmas trees have turned into “holiday trees”. Other holidays celebrated at this time do not celebrate with decorated trees, so to call a Christmas tree a holiday tree is unnecessary, and maybe a little disingenuous. Although people from many backgrounds light candles this time of year, a menorah is a menorah and a kinara is a kinara, and neither are ”holiday candles”. We attend holiday parties at our places of work, but I’ve found those are often exclusively decorated with Christmas decorations, even though it’s called a holiday party. Minimizing all holidays to one big “Happy Holidays” can devalue the meaning of any one holiday. It can also seem like an attempt to disguise Christmas, which can leave both Christians and non-Christians feeling frustrated.

 

So, while I will wish people “Happy Holidays” if I’m addressing a group, or if I don’t know what holiday a person celebrates, I will also wish them a Happy Hanukkah, a Merry Christmas, a Happy Solstice or a Joyous Kwanzaa, if I know what they celebrate. And if someone wishes me a happy something-other-than-Christmas, I will not be offended. After all, I believe the intent with wishes this time of year is always good.

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (2)
TOP

DIN Game Debrief: A New Team Member

Sep 07
Posted by Sean Oliver in Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence, LGBT, Training

We debriefed an intercultural incident (previous post) live on Twitter last night, with help from some great participants, using our “DIN” model (Describe – Interpret – Navigate).  We’ve listed a few of the responses that we received on Twitter last night, with a few of our own observations. Please feel free to share more in the comments section, or ask any questions that come to mind.  We hope you join us next month for the second edition of the DIN Game!

Carol: Describe

  • Conceived “dream team” based on individual performance history & skills.
  • Told Phil David was her first choice.
  • Wondered if not assigning David constituted discrimination.

 

 Phil: Describe

  • Gave Carol Carte Blanc to select team members.
  • Said he wants the best people on the team.
  • Told Carol he wasn’t sure the Muslim, SE Asian clients would want an out, leader of a GLBT affinity group “in their midst”.
  • Thanked David for leading a difficult meeting the week before.

 

 David: Describe

  • Saved a project similar to this two years ago.
  • Recently facilitated a difficult meeting.
  • Has been involved in a yearlong cross cultural skill building initiative.
  • Demonstrated leadership around GLBT issues within the firm.

 
Carol: Interpret

  • Excited by career growth.
  • Believes in equality.
  • Wants to play by the rules/respects the law.
  • Respects hierarchy – questions if she should question her boss further.

 

 Phil: Interpret

  • Prefers to be indirect, and non-confrontational about this GLBT issue.
  • Respects cultural contrast of Southeast Asian client.
  • Wants to make a client-centered decision.

 

 David: Interpret

  • Likely comfortable with difficult conversations and situations.
  • Values collaboration, cross-cultural competence, diversity, and learning about cultures.
  • Likely to be very open to the idea of talking frankly about the impact of being GLBT in certain client markets.
                                                                               Navigate

  • All parties need to share a common understanding of how GLBT issues might impact the firm’s relationship with the client. One set of strategies would be to deploy some GLBT-specific training materials. 
  • All parties need to discuss how GLBT issues might impact the firm’s relationship with the clients. 
  • Carol and Phil need to acknowledge that GLBT make choices about how “out” they are based on complex personal and professional cultural sense. Dialoging with David may be one way to explore this specific incident. 
  • Understanding from this lesson needs to be refracted through the firm’s explicit commitment to equality and policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation.
  • Carol could engage Phil indirectly; by having a 3rd party that has a relationship with him talk to him first.  This could be an effective way to deal with Phil’s preference for indirectness in this matter.
  • Carol could ask for David’s advice about how one could navigate a culture whose religious beliefs don’t gel with some members of a global team, and use that as a springboard to start a conversation with Phil.
  • All the actors should be engaged on this issue in a way they’re all comfortable with, in order to arrive at a solution that works for everyone.
  • David needs to be clear what a successful client relationship with the Southeast Asian firm might look like. What does he want? 

 

Read More
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

Intercultural Incident: A New Team Member

Aug 31
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence, LGBT, Training, Working with...

This is the Intercultural Incident that we will be debriefing live on Twitter on September 6th, using the hashtag #DINGame (see previous post for details).  We hope to see you’ll join us!

Carol Friedrich is a project manager for a human resource consulting firm. The firm has been growing its business internationally and just last month signed a contract with a new client that has offices across Southeast Asia. The first project has a very short time line and will be an important demonstration of how committed the firm is to serving their clients. Carol is excited and a little nervous to be leading this effort. When she met with the firm’s partners they indicated that success with this first wave of work could accelerate her and the new team’s career trajectory.

Carol’s boss is Phil Trajor, one of the original partners of the firm. Last week, Carol had a conversation at the end of a meeting that has troubled her all weekend. Phil asked her whom she wanted on the team for the new project. Previously, Phil had indicated she had carte blanc to pick the best people. He emphasized how important the project was to the emerging relationship with the new client, and also to the Asian markets the firm is trying to penetrate. In fact, he said, “Choose the best. Let’s really wow them.”

In response to Phil’s question last week, Carol had enthusiastically listed the four leads she wanted and how their previous work had demonstrated the excellence the project required. When Carol mentioned David Finkelstein’s name Phil interrupted her. “I don’t think he’s quite right for this project—you know?” Puzzled, Carol asked, “What do you mean?” Phil smiled cryptically and thought, “I guess I’ll have to be really direct.” He leaned in and said in a softer voice, “Well, he is gay. I’m not sure our new, Muslim, Southeast Asian clients want an “out” leader of the firm’s GLBT affinity group in their midst.” Phil was interrupted and pulled away before they could continue.

On the way out of the office the same day, Phil ran into David. He said, “Hello” and thanked him for facilitating a tense meeting the week before. As he walked to the car he wondered why Carol did not get “it” and had forced him to be so direct. It felt uncomfortable. As Jim walked past David, David wondered if Carol had told Jim how excited he was about the possibility of working on the Southeast Asian project.

Following the conversation with Phil, Carol was stunned. David was the first person on her wish list. Carol is pretty sure the team really needs David, and two years ago he saved a very similar project that had fallen behind. Like many at the firm, David has been involved in a year long cross-cultural skill building initiative. Many credited the training with giving the firm a significant advantage in getting the new Southeast Asian client. She is very disappointed and a bit confused about Phil’s comment.

Although she hasn’t looked at the exact wording of the policy, the firm has a very clear policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation. Is this discrimination? Equal opportunity is not something Carol takes lightly—the firm’s commitment to equality had opened up a space for her to move forward professionally. She really wants to play by the rules, but what does that mean in this case? Should she have a conversation with Phil? What should she say? Should Phil and Carol talk to David about Phil’s concerns? What would David say?

©2005  Scott Sawyer and Dianne Hofner Saphiere. All rights reserved.

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

The Intersection of Diversity, Inclusion, and Culture

Jun 10
Posted by Rebecca Parrilla in Cross-cultural, Diversity, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence

We’ve all heard the term “diversity and inclusion” over and over again. Cultural diversity – or “diversity” for short – is the variety of behavioral and mindset patterns and norms that characterize different cultural groups, due to the common experiences, influences, values, and beliefs (the “culture”) of each of those groups. Diversity is a reality – it’s a fact of life in the U.S. and most everywhere else on the planet. Inclusion, however, is a choice. Inclusion is not an attitude or a perspective – it’s behavior. Being inclusive means acting, after gaining awareness and insight about diversity. We have a name for gaining awareness and insight about diversity and then acting on it by engaging in inclusive behavior – we call it intercultural competence. A critical step in developing intercultural competence (therefore creating an inclusive environment) is to understand these different behavioral/mindset patterns and norms (or cultural differences, for short), and discern how you can adapt to these different norms without losing yourself in the process. Just as culture is learned and shaped through a collection of experiences and influences, so also can intercultural competence be learned.

Before you can really learn about others, though, you first have to appreciate the cultural “filters” or “lenses” through which you yourself are experiencing the world around you. Only then can you distinguish with any precision or consistency how you can best approach navigating cultural differences. This process is also known as moving from monocultural mindsets—where one’s own culture is the primary lens, to intercultural mindsets—where one’s own culture is recognized to be one among many, with each culture providing different alternatives for seeing and behaving in a situation.

So what does this have to do with business? Competence around culture in a business context means that people can understand the similarities and also the differences present – understand their own lenses, and also take on other lenses to broaden the range of alternatives before them. They can see where there is likely to be tension, and where there is opportunity for cultural synergy. Organizations, employees, and leaders with intercultural competence are better able to anticipate tensions (or at least the potential for tensions) as well as the potential synergies, and can distinguish among the range of cognitive and/or behavioral adaptations they might try in a particular cross-cultural situation in order to yield the greatest dividends.

Building intercultural competence is a journey that truly never ends. One can make substantial progress and notably increase skills and improve outcomes, yet one is never “done” since there will always be new and changing cultures to explore and work with. The frameworks for working with cultures with intercultural competence, though, are the same and thus the process is manageable and predictable.

Read More
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (3)