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

Americans, Relationships, and Contracts

Nov 21
Posted by Randall Stieghorst in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, Intercultural Competence

Why do American businesspeople often seem less focused on personal relationships in the business world, as opposed to many of their global counterparts?

One of the most salient differences between Americans and many other cultures when it comes to establishing new business partnerships is the American tendency to “dive into business”, “get down to the nitty-gritty”, and negotiate some sort of written or verbal agreement as quickly and efficiently as possible.  Although we do our due diligence, we don’t necessarily feel the need to make a deep personal connection with everyone we intend to partner with.  Why, then, do business people from a great many other countries tend to rely on both due diligence *and* building a deeper personal connection?

In the U.S., we have a vibrant legal system. We have plenty of lawyers, a well-defined history of contract law, a relatively efficient and impartial court system, and a transparent, albeit sometimes expensive, process for leveraging the court system when necessary.  The bottom line is that in the US, we have recourse. We have little doubt that if we sign an agreement with someone, or even enter a simple verbal contract, it will be enforceable.  And if we do have to enforce it, we have systematic and institutionalized ways to do that.  The US is often criticized (sometimes rightfully so) for being a very litigious society; we rely on our court system to be the enforcer of last resort when protecting our personal and professional rights.  It’s the efficiency of the court system that makes this possible.  Even for minor grievances, we have “small claims court”. In the end, we don’t need to trust our potential business partners on a deeply personal level because we know that we have options if they don’t stand up to their end of the deal.

In many other countries, the legal system is simply not as transparent, easy to maneuver, or efficient. In such cases, businesspeople who are forming a new agreement will want to be sure they have other methods of enforcement besides the court system.  Building a strong relationship and getting to know your potential business partner (including their team, their family, and their social network) gives you a deeper and stronger connection.  Enforcement can then be based on commitment to friendship, an aversion to being shamed in front of one’s friends and family, or unwillingness to cause long-term damage to a professional network.  And in some places, those factors may act as a much more timely enforcer than a court system that may requires several years to reach a decision on a contract – by which time the market opportunity may not even exist any longer.
So for many Americans, the need to build strong personal relationships before entering into a business relationship is less intuitive, whereas for many international professionals, there is no better option to ensure success in a partnership.

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

DIN Game Debrief: “The Sales Strategy Meeting”

Oct 05
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, Intercultural Competence, Training, Working with...

Here is the debrief from the October 4th DIN Game. Any comments or other observations are welcome.

Describe
Julie’s Words and Actions  

Was asked by company HQ to increase Indian subsidiary’s sales by 20% in one year

* Scheduled a meeting with Divyesh

* Arrived at the meeting at precisely the prearranged start time

* Participated (listened and spoke) in the meeting

* Asks Divyesh to “get down to business” and to present his unit’s sales strategy

* Tells Divyesh she appreciates his briefing

* Asks Divyesh for specific action steps and timelines to achieve sales targets

 Divyesh‘s Words and Actions 

Prepared for the meeting

* Participated (listened and spoke) in the meeting

* Arrives to meeting 20 minutes after the prearranged start time, and tells Julie that he had to take his son to school

* Asks Julie questions about her stay in India

* Provides Julie with information about his unit’s

history and sales strategy

* Offers to put together a detailed action plan for

Julie within a few days
 

Interpret
From Julie’s Perspective 

 

From Julie’s Perspective

* I’m very much looking forward to Divyesh’s ideas on how to achieve a 20% sales increase in his unit. The Bangalore office is key in India, and falling short there will almost certainly affect my career path.

* I have so much to do, and I don’t have that much time to meet with Divyesh. I’m frustrated that he’s so late, and he didn’t even apologize!

* He’s already late, and now he wants to engage in small talk? He seems like a nice enough guy, but let’s get on with the important and pressing issues first, then later if we have time, we can get to know each other. HQ only cares about results.

* Why is he giving me all of this irrelevant background? Sure, it’s interesting, but today’s meeting is about how to meet our sales targets. I hope he has a detailed plan, which will increase my confidence in him. A plan is also something tangible I can present to HQ.

* He doesn’t have any specifics! This meeting has essentially been a waste of time. I’m a little disappointed in Divyesh. Can I trust him and his team to deliver the results that HQ demands?

 

Cultural archetypes at play: task-orientation,

low context/direct communication, equality

and individualism (expectation of self-initiative),

sequential, universal

From Divyesh’s Perspective 

*I am very well prepared for this meeting. I have all the information Julie will need to make an informed decision about my unit’s sales strategy.

* I’m glad I had time this morning to take my son to school. I know I’ll be a little late to the meeting, but Julie will understand the special situation I was in. We can also just stretch out the meeting a little longer if need be.

* I want to make sure Julie feels at home and comfortable with her new surroundings, because she is my boss AND because she is not from here – I want to be a good host. I hope she’s successfully adjusting to life in India. Let me ask her some questions.

* I wonder what kind of person Julie is, what she likes to do, where she chose to live in Bangalore. I should ask her some questions to see how I should act (and how I should expect her to act towards me) when we interact.

* Why was Julie so abrupt when asking if we could “get down to business”? She must want to hear more about our local office, so I’ll give her as much background and as much detail as possible. It’s the least I can do, since it’s her first time here.

* Why would I have specific action steps? She never asked me for this before, plus it’s her job as Sales Director to come up with the specifics. It would be presumptuous of me to think otherwise! Of course I can’t tell her this. Now I feel upset for having disappointed her and embarrassed for appearing as if I wasn’t doing my job.

 

Cultural archetypes at play: hierarchy, conscious, indirect/high context and face-saving, communication, synchronic, situational

Navigate 

Approaches that take both perspectives into consideration

*Cognizant of the Indian strong sense of hierarchy, Julie could have been more explicit when communicating her expectations for this meeting in advance. She could have done this by providing Divyesh with a detailed agenda and/or a list of data she’d like to see during the meeting, sending him a detailed email, or simply clearly telling him beforehand.

* Divyesh could have asked Julie to provide him with specific expectations for the meeting, i.e., what exactly she would like him to present and communicate.

* Knowing and respecting the Indian synchronic cultural archetype, Julie could have communicated to Divyesh (in advance) of the importance of being at the meeting at the prescribed time, and the consequences of not being there on time. She could have asked Divyesh to let her know in advance if he thought he would be late or had to cancel, and they could have come up with contingency plans (a different time or day or meeting arrangement, etc.).

* Knowing and respecting the American sequential cultural archetype, Divyesh could have called Julie as soon as he knew that he would not make the prescribed meeting time.

* Knowing the importance of relationships in India, Julie could have budgeted enough meeting time to allow for non-business related discussion, particularly since this was the first time she was meeting Divyesh. She could have also mitigated the situation entirely by scheduling a separate “get to know each other” time.

* Cognizant of the American task-focused and sequential cultural archetypes, Divyesh could have scheduled a separate event (lunch, coffee, invitation to his house for dinner, etc.) either before or after the meeting as a non-business related “get to know each other” event.

* Divyesh could also have asked Julie in advance if he could schedule an orientation meeting, to help her get to know the office, during which he could have provided her with company’s local background details, which he believes are so critical for her success.

 

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

Canada Day: Cultural Values vs. Institutions of Influence

Jul 01
Posted by Sean Oliver in Cross-cultural, General, Intercultural Competence

I was reading an article today by Douglas Todd at the Vancouver Sun about Canada, values, culture, immigration, and identity, as sort of a reflection on Canada Day. It’s a well-written piece, and lays out the difficulties in assessing what exactly a people spread out over such a large country really share, culturally:

“We are stretched out geographically. We were “founded” about 500 years ago by antagonist peoples rooted in French or English. We have of late recognized the cultures of aboriginals. We also have a porous 9,000-kilometre border with the most powerful nation on Earth. And we continue to have the world’s highest per capita immigration rate.”

He goes on to discuss the different viewpoints of what constitutes “Canadian-ness”, and speaks about a divide between liberals and conservatives in their attitudes towards citizenship, immigration and values. He then lays out 10 values that, in his minds’ eye, transcend these divisions and encompass Canadians as a whole:

“1. Participatory democracy.
2. Reasonable tolerance of diversity.
3. The rule of law.
4. Stewardship of the Earth.
5. No discrimination, including on gender or sexual orientation.
6. Mixed economics: Market enterprise tempered by regulation.
7. Universal health care for core needs.
8. Readiness to pay taxes.
9. Willingness to learn from ‘The Other.’
10. Commitment to the common good.“

This list may accurately reflect a majority opinion of Canadians, but then again, they might not. It’s hard to say. But going a little deeper, I think that much of what he’s listed here are institutions that influence what Canadians value, rather than a set of values per se. Economy, political system, legal system, environment, health care, can be called institutions of influence, or institutions shared by most Canadians that work to create a mutual sense of what’s right, wrong, good, bad, normal, abnormal… in short, a culture. So what are some larger cultural values that these items above point to?

On Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Canadians highest scale is individualism. Participatory democracy, tolerance of diversity, and non-discrimination could all be viewed as stemming from placing great value on an individual rights and liberties, and the individual as primary locus of a society (vs. collectivism, where the group or family is the primary focal point). However, in contrast with the equally-individualistic Americans, Canadians also tend to value cooperation. Winning at all costs isn’t always respected if it violates the spirit of wanting to do the right thing. This cultural value can be reflected in universal health care, and readiness to pay taxes on the list above. Some say that this delicate balance between individual freedom and collective responsibility is the major defining cultural value of Canadians.

Of course, even before the current wave of new immigrants to Canada, Canada had two distinct linguistic subcultures (anglophone and francophone), as well as a sizeable native population. What these subcultures may value will vary, of course. But it’s important to be able to do some basic generalizing around archetypal shared values when dealing with Canadians in business, education… or maybe you just happen to be in town while Prince William and Duchess Kate are in Ottawa for some Canada Day festivities.

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

Canada vs. the USA: Immigration, and Integration

Apr 29
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a Europe-based ranking system that assigns favorable or unfavorable ratings for countries, based on their integration policies for immigrants across a broad range of differing environments.  The most recent ranking has Canada at #3 and the United States at #9.  It’s interesting to see how different countries are ranked on the index, the likely effects of cultural difference, and the “bigger picture” that’s not captured in indices such as this. 

Immigration and the labor force are a hot-button issue in Canada right now, as 2011 is the year that the Canadian Baby Boom generation hits 65 years old, and begins to retire en masse.  2011 is supposed to be the peak of the number of Canadians actually engaged in the workforce, and any further gains in the active labor force are expected to be from immigration alone.  There was actually a bigger baby boom in Canada (higher birth rate) than the US.  And as 75% of Canada’s population resides within 100 miles of the US border due to weather and geography, there is not the same kind of space for demographic expansion that exists in the US.  For these reasons, workforce reduction and immigration are generally seen as even more important issues in Canada than they are in the US.

So why does Canada do better on the MIPEX?  Canada does better on the Access to Nationality, Long-Term Residence, Education, Family-Reunion for 3rd Country Nationals, and Labour Market Mobility scales.  The US and Canada are in a dead heat on the Anti-Discrimination scale, and the US wins on the Political Participation Scale (as non-citizens can vote in the USA).   Low cost, easy access to education and health care are also a huge pluses for immigrants moving to Canada.

On the other hand, in the US, university-educated immigrants do better for themselves and their families than in Canada, financially speaking.  This is likely due to the fact that in the US many immigrants with degrees have pre-arranged jobs and/or have studied in the US, whereas most immigrants to Canada do not have pre-arranged employment.  The US also has a more diverse job market, and a more favorable business climate for entrepreneurship, especially in technology. 

I think cultural values probably play a role as well.  While still individualistic when compared to some other countries, Canadians tend to be more collectivistic than Americans, as evidenced by their universal health care and education systems, the tax money they spend on new immigrants to try to help them achieve language proficiency and in general their support of civil and political institutions and collective decision making (more than Americans).  In other words, regarding these issues the approach in Canada can be seen as -  if we all help the group then we all benefit as individuals.  In the U.S., the approach regarding these issues tends to be more – if everyone helps themselves, then the group as a whole will benefit.  For example,  language programs in the US with  similar goals do exist, and may even be funded by the federal government (at least partially), but they’re likely to be delivered by individual NGOs, and there is likely a cost for the immigrant to pay.  These NGOs generally also have to take personal responsibility for creating, managing and promoting these programs (individualism).  Coincidentally there’s an organization in our building that provides such services.

Of course it’s not possible to reduce all immigration and integration issues to a few causes, but I think shared cultural values definitely play a role, which we can see reflected in the policies above.  No country has really found a holistic solution to deal with the recent waves of immigration all over the world, and it will be interesting to see how these demographic shifts play out in the future.

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

What is the Intercultural Development Inventory™?

Apr 08
Posted by Sean Oliver in Cross-cultural, Intercultural Competence, Training

I recently attended a seminar in Baltimore, to become certified to give feedback and administer the Intercultural Development Inventory™, or “IDI” for short.  Everyone here in our Chicago office who works on the training side is now a certified Qualified Administrator (QA) of the IDI.  The IDI is a statistically-validated tool, which is based on Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.   Essentially, the DMIS is a research-based model which looks at how we, as individuals, view and understand cultural differences between ourselves and others.  It places people’s mindsets on a continuum, from the most ethnocentric, to the most ethnorelative viewpoints.  Moreover, the DMIS posits that you can’t move from the most ethnocentric stages all the way to the most ethnorelative ones all at once; rather, it’s a developmental model which requires people to pass through every stage one at a time.

The IDI is a 50-question instrument, which will show a person not just where they are located on the DMIS, but also where a person thinks they are located.  It measures both our perceptions of ourselves, and also how we really think about and interact with those from different cultures.  My B.A. is in Anthropology, and surprisingly, I never once heard the words “Intercultural” or “Cross-cultural” mentioned once during my undergrad, let alone the DMIS.  We focused mainly on the “traditional” stalwarts of Anthropology, Malinowski, Boaz, Meade, etc.  It’s amazing to me that someone devised a way to quantify our ability to recognize, understand, and to adapt to the behavior of people from other cultures… and even more amazing that it’s a rigorously-tested and statistically-validated tool.  

(more…)

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