Section one: Introduction (identifying one weakness in your intercultural interactions, about 200 words) 1) Identify one area of weakness you have when interacting with people from different cultures or when working in a multicultural environment. 2) Provide background information and specific evidence to demonstrate weakness based on your experiences interacting with people from different cultures. Section two: Reflection Review the weakness from different perspectives, e.g. explaining your own intention, your observations (or speculation) of others’ reactions or describing the context in which the weakness occurred. Section three: Interpretation (Analyzing the weakness) Indepth analysis of the cause of this weakness, such as personal reasons, environmental reasons, or certain assumptions you hold. Relate the weakness to the theories, concepts and tools, which are listed in the Canvas page weekly. Apply information about yourself from the various selfsurveys conducted in class andor provided on Canvas. You must demonstrate theory application in the essay. Section four: Action plan Based on the theories, concepts or tools you have identified in section three, develop a detailed, realistic action plan to overcome this identified weakness and improve your intercultural effectiveness at universities and in the workplace in the future. Again, in your action plan, you must apply the theories and use theories creatively to inform your actions.
BUSM4599 Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT INTER-CULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS DEVELOPMENTAL PLAN Class Group: G04 (Semester 3_2022) Lecturer: Dr Phil Smith Assessment type: Individual (30%) Campus: SGS Campus Due date: 15 Jan 2023 Word count: 1315 Page: 20 BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan TABLE OF CONTENT I INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………… II REFLECTION………………………………………………………………4 III INTERPRETATION………………………………………………………5 IV ACTION PLAN…………………………………………………………… V REFERENCES………………………………………………………………9 VI APPENDIX………………………………………………………………….10 BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan I INTRODUCTION Intercultural communication is crucial in today's globalized world, where it is important to adapt culturally and interrelate effectively so that international communities can engage in and build better relationships (Sarbaugh 1979) Nevertheless, it is never easy to communicate in a multicultural environment because different countries will communicate differently based on their backgrounds, traditions, and community values (Hall & Hall 1990) which can lead to ‘cultural misunderstanding’ Regarding Solhi & Mahmoudi (2015), individuals will undoubtedly encounter cultural misunderstanding in a multicultural environment As I begin to study at RMIT, a such multicultural environment, I acknowledge my weakness is a lack of variety of cultural knowledge and intercultural communication skills, resulting in 'intercultural misunderstandings' in communication When we collaborated as a team to complete the final assignment for the Global Corporate Responsibility (GCR) course, I was forced to deal with completely misunderstanding my foreign friends’ behaviors I consider myself fortunate to have taken the Cross-Cultural Management course because I now recognize the value of intercultural communication and how it helped me interpret real-world case scenarios in the previous course from a better angle I was in charge of a team of five, which included three Vietnamese and two American students The arguments actually occurred when we started dividing tasks and commenting on each part of each person’s work I misinterpreted when two American friends directly contributed their opinions, even though some were extremely direct and negative It was then I BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan realized the differences in communication styles between Asia and Western cultures Sincerity and explicit communication are always valued by my American friends (Rijamampianina 1996) They focused solely on outcomes rather than processes or relationships While Asia cultures prefer to value implicitness, resourcefulness, softness, carefulness, create relationships and avoid conflict in communication The GCR course provided me with experience in overcoming intercultural understanding problems to instruct me about responsibility in working in an international environment in the future II REFLECTION Based on the cultural differences between Eastern and Western cultures, I will describe my reflection on my weakness Playing as team leader, I hosted meetings and task allocation I delegate myself to divide tasks for other teammates according to my own plan, without asking if they were able to finish those parts I believed as a team leader that my dividing task structure was obviously the most optimal way Vietnamese members listened to my allocation and did not inquire about additional requirements or react negatively On the other hand, American members reacted angrily to my "command" and chastised me for not respecting their viewpoints Vietnamese cultures believe leaders have more authority over the best outcomes and members are afraid to voice their ideas, especially points of disagreement with leaders’ decisions to avoid negative impacts on their relationships (Chen 1995) As a result, my Vietnamese friends believe that I am the only one who can direct them in a particular direction However, in Western culture, American people see every individual as equal in a team, and giving direct and explicit comments is commonplace in America across all the business hierarchy levels (Kerr & Jermier 1978) People are free to share and comment on other points if they disagree Hence, my Western BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan members did not accept if I allocated tasks for all members by myself without their agreement, even though I was a team leader The differences in communication styles between Eastern and Western also occur when my team started to give feedback for each other's parts After I ask everyone "Is my presentation good?", my American friends directly say ‘no’ when they disagree with some of my points At that time, I was extremely shocked by their direct negative response The word ‘no’ is used in some Western cultures to indicate that something is not acceptable and to emphasize a different personal perspective on a subject (Hall & Hall 1990, Hall 1976) Due to the value orientation of honesty and openness, saying "no" is not only expected but also not seen as impolite or insulting However, Vietnamese prefer to answer questions with a "yes," avoiding a "no" (Würtz 2017) If they disagree with my views, at first they usually praise my efforts, then they will show me some mistakes that need to be fixed For example, ‘Nice! Nhi, your parts are overall really good and attractive to us, but you can better your performance if you fix some irrational points for the best’ This in order to keep up group harmony because they value group relationships and performance Saying ‘no’ would disturb the positive atmosphere Overall, Vietnamese teammates had friendly attitudes during the meeting, whereas American members had overbearing and straightforward attitudes, which made the group atmosphere become uncomfortable and discouraged them from communicating Subsequently, I understood that our behavior would be influenced by our different cultural norms, backgrounds, traditions, or community perception Hence, Eastern and Western cultures will communicate differently (Hall 1976) My lack of understanding of different cultural backgrounds and communication styles led me to misinterpret my American friends' behaviors when they contributed their ideas directly and bravely rebelled against what they disagreed with III INTERPRETATION According to Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory, cultures have different values and behaviors, which are influenced by cultural differences between countries (Hofstede 1991) Hofstede model clarifies key dimensions for culture comparison, presented in Figure (Hofstede 1991) BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan Figure 1: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (Adapted from Hofstede 1991) In my scenario, the ‘Power distance’ and ‘Individualism & Collectivism’ in Hofstede’s model will analyze my weakness of cultural misunderstanding Figure 2: Culture comparison between United States and Vietnam based on the Hofstede model (Adapted from Hofstede Insights n.d) First, ‘power distance’ (PD) prefers the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and society accept and expect power to be divided unevenly (Han et al 2017) Regarding Figure 2, Vietnam has a high score of PD, which are 70, while the United States low score of PD (score of 40) Under Vietnamese culture, people accept a hierarchical order that requires no further justification, and leaders play a significant role in decision-making, regardless BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan of their members’ opinions Further, according to my Self-survey, I get a score of 17 for ‘power distribution’ (Appendix 1), which implies that I extremely prefer hierarchical relationships in teamwork Hence, as I was the team leader, I have the authority to assign tasks to all members without their consent However, in nations with fairly low PD scores like U.S people premise of ‘liberty and justice for all’ so team members are equal and independent of their leaders (Khatri 2009) This interprets my American teammates' aggressive responses to my allocation, which they perceived as unfair and disrespectful Second, my team's conflicts were also caused by a misunderstanding between collectivism and individualism Vietnam, with a score of 20 is a collectivistic society, implying that it emphasizes the importance of group values and relationships rather than individuals (Figure 2) Vietnamese enhance a harmonious working atmosphere, avoiding direct criticism to reduce negative impacts on team relationships While the United States is as highly individualistic, which every person as a self-sufficient individual, individuals' values are more significant (Hofstede 1991), which opposite Vietnam (Figure 2) I score 25 for ‘social relationship’ in Self-survey (Appendix 1), thus, I can be considered to have a balance between individualism and collectivism Since Vietnamese culture emphasizes collectivism, I often viewed American members' straightforward communication style as criticism, which could harm relationships and team performance I depreciate their actions I misunderstand the differences in communication styles between high and low-context cultures Based on Hall's context theory (Hall and Hall 1990; Hall 1976), people from different cultures have different communication styles Vietnam is a high-context culture, where people often prefer explicit communication styles, rely heavily on their relationships in their organization, and respect hierarchy (Figure 3) In contrast, in America, the low-context culture encourages direct and straightforward communication, views relationships as insignificant for identity, and values equality across hierarchy (Romani 2004) Differences in culture and communication styles cause misunderstandings and conflict between people working on a common project (Croucher et al 2012) As a result, intercultural misunderstanding between Vietnamese and American members of my team is unavoidable due to different cultural backgrounds BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan Figure 3: Meyer Cultural Map (Adapted from Meyer 2014) Thus, due to cultural misunderstanding, both cultures feel each other is acting disrespectfully, which can contribute to unforeseen conflicts This incident made me realize I am weak in understanding cultural differences I learned from dealing with this multicultural issue that I should always have a wide range of perspectives when working in a multicultural team to prevent unforeseen confrontations IV ACTION PLAN Implementing an Action Plan to overcome my weakness of cultural misunderstanding It is important for me to diversify my cultural knowledge backgrounds and perspectives when working in a multicultural team Consequently, I need to improve my cultural intelligence (CQ), which is the ability to interact successfully with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds within their cultural milieu (Ang et al 2006) I will develop a CQ self-training plan according to the Cultural Intelligence framework (Figure 4) BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan Figure 4: Cultural Intelligence framework (Adapted from Earley & Mosakowski 2004) My CQ self-training plan Stage 1: Drive (Motivation) Self-efficacy (confidence to deal with situations, and challenges), intrinsic (driven by a sense of wanting to learn or a sense of curiosity), and extrinsic (getting excited by external opportunities, and challenges want to overcome) motivation are included in the first stage According to Ward et al 2011, this stage will assist me in realizing the need to adopt another person's culture As a result, I will take the Early & Mosakowski CQ test to assess my ability for working and relating across cultures (Appendix 2) Stage 2: Knowledge (Cognition) In the second stage, I will review the lecturer's slides to remember how different cultures are similar or different and to understand accurately how culture influences behaviors, values, and beliefs By revising the lecturer slides for the CCM course, I will equip myself with sufficient information regarding culturally influenced behaviors and enhance my cognition of the CQ dimension Stage 3: Strategy (meta-cognition) In the third stage, I will strategically think about how I make sense of culturally diverse experiences I will refine my approach to successfully dealing with multicultural partners During this stage, I will evaluate myself by comparing my experience with my initial expectations BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan Stage 4: Adapt and Action (Behavior) The final stage is connected to the behavioral aspect of CQ After the three previous steps, I will reevaluate my view by putting myself in hypothetical situations on the Internet or attempting to join multicultural teams in other courses at RMIT to exam if how I respond within different cultural contexts and behaviors V REFERENCES Ang S, Dyne L and Koh C (2006) ‘Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence’, Group and Organization Management, 31(1):100-123, doi:10.1177/1059601105275267 Chen M (1995) Asian management systems: Chinese, Japanese, and Korean styles of business, Routledge, London Croucher SM, Bruno A, McGrath P, Adams C, McGahan C, Suits A and Huckins A (2012) ‘Conflict Styles and High–Low Context Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Extension’, Brief report, pp.63-73, doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.640093 Earley PC and Mosakowski E (2004) ‘Cultural intelligence’, Harvard business review, 82(10):139-146 Hall ET (1976) Beyond culture, Doubleday, New York Hall ET and Hall MR (1990) Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French and Americans, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, England 10 BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan Han D, Ashok K Lalwani AK and Duhachek A (2017) ‘Power Distance Belief, Power, and Charitable Giving’, Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1):182–195, doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw084 Hofstede G (1991) Empirical models of cultural differences, Contemporary issues in cross- cultural psychology, pp 4–20, Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers Kerr S and Jermier JM (1978) ‘Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement’, Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3):374-403, doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5 Khatri N (2009) ‘Consequences of Power Distance Orientation in Organisations’, The Journal of Business Perspective, 13(1):1-9, doi:10.1177/097226290901300101 Meyer E (2014) The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business, Public Affairs Rijamampianina R (1996) ‘Effective Management in Multicultural Organizations: Creating a Learning-Based Order With a "Sharing Principle"’, Economic Journal of Hokkaido University, 25:119-167 Romani L (2004) Culture in management: The measurement of differences, 2nd edn, International Human Resource Management, SAGE, Newcastle, UK Sarbaugh L E (1979) Intercultural communication, Transaction Publishers Solhi M and Mahmoudi A (2015) ‘Cultural Conceptualization and Cross-Cultural Misunderstanding in Iranian English’, International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6):353-359, doi:10.11648/j.ijll.20150306.16 11 BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan Würtz E (2017) ‘Intercultural Communication on websites: a Cross-Cultural Analysis of Web sites from High-Context Cultures and Low-Context Cultures’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1):274–299, doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00313.x VI APPENDIX Appendix 1: Self survey 12 BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan Appendix 2: CQ Test (Adapted from Earley and Mosakowski 2004) 13 BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Intercultural Effectiveness Development Plan 14 BUSM4699_ CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT