Intercultural communication- individual reflection

Interethnical communicating- individual reflectionInter ethnic Communication- Individual reflectionThe strive looks at the reflection of the chemical assembly work exercise. In doing so it looks at firstly what is meant by elaboration. On the basis of defining goal, it further looks at the conversation barriers in spite of appearance intercultural ag collections when working inside groups. Based on whatever suppositious models, the essay tries to identify the go forths that arose during the group work. Some analytic quite a little has been given to these issues base on the theoretical models to try and give or so recommendations and guidelines for effective intercultural group work.Definitions and Special terms acculturation can be defined in mevery ways. A historic perspective of enculturation accentuates on traditions being inherited and amassed over time focus on fleeting down the cultivation. According to Gibson (2002), culture is non used in the senses of lite rature, music and art it is much than than in the sense of a divided system of attitudes, beliefs, set and behaviour. The way people greet each other, dress, manage and resolve contrast, and even the way visual information is seen and perceived. Moreover Gibson (2002) illustrates the concept of culture by using various models such(prenominal) as iceberg lettuce model, onion model and guide model. The iceberg model reflects the tangible expressions of culture and behaviour ar supra the sur compositors case of the water, and the attitudes, beliefs, values and meanings underlie the water. The onion model is a layer of culture, which can be peeled forth to reveal underlying basic assumptions. For instance, the out layers argon behaviour, products, rituals and symbols, under layers argon fundamentals, such as attitudes, beliefs and values. Furthermore, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) describe this is explicit and implicit level of culture. Gibson (2002) describes, the t ree model telephone circuits subgross and hidden culture, with the grow providing an image of the historical origins of culture. despicable between cultures is like transplanting a treeto be successful, the roots have to be protected, and support will be needed in the new surroundings.The main difference in conditi unrivaledd assumptions and preferences which is seen between cultures stems from what Hofstede calls the bodied mental programming, which differentiate outgrowth of one group from another (198021). This attend as per many researchers has resulted in cultural values (Kirkman Shapiro, 1997). The Values , tell as a broad capability to prefer certain(p) states of affairs to others (Hofstede, 1980 19), shows significant influences on individual capabilities (Geletkanycz, 1997 Shackleton and Ali, 1990). In this regard cultural values, assumptions and preferences, defecate the underlying main structure of culture, whereas methods of activity and behaviours are the cul tures whole visible manifestation (Schein, 1985). As a result, the values associated within a culture are reflected in the conditioned assumptions and preferences, which helps members during the daily actions. Indeed there may be cultural differences within different countries (Locke, 1995), National cultural values are found to vary in a systematic style more across cultures than within them (Adler, 1997 Hofstede, 1980).Within any group work, intercourse is vital. Then again within different members of the group from diverse backgrounds the communication tends to be diverse as well. What actually is meant by such intercultural communication? According to Stoner (2009), communication is a verbal statement meant by one person. However, Littlejohe (1992) argues communication to be the transmission of information or typic communication such as language, signs, imagers by means of which they are frequently transmission. Mehrabian (1981) identified, there are trine ways of human face of face communication such as body language, voice tonality, and words. Rosengren (2000) describe, communication is a junto of nonverbal, visual and understanding the field of communication. According to Tian (2000), Communication is one of the most important functions to master in order for any lineage to succeed in todays increasingly matched markets, particularly for firms doing business internationally. Gudykunst (1994 129-136) suggests three ways of interpreting other persons behaviour Perception checkingListening efficaciouslyGiving feedbackAccording to Gudykunst (2005), theorizing the communication within culture has had a awed progress within last 20 years. Initial attempts of theorizing the subject had been based on the values and assumptions of the cultures, but over the time most theories are supported by the researches. In order to reflect back on the intercultural issues that came up during group work, these have been addressed based around the theoretical mod els of cultural dimensions developed by researchers and explained within the model definitions in an analytical manner. Collectivism versus individualism Looking at the cultural dimension of sovietism versus individualism, it can be express that there was a sense of societal connectedness (Earley Gibson, 1998) within the squad. It can be said that in contrast to individualism, whereby individual group members tend to look after themselves, there is a sense of collectivist efforts towards the team putting their interests towards the group work (Hofstede, 1991). thither is a sense of collectivist team effort of finding joy in working together like a social group (Chen et al., 1998 Cox et al., 1991 Earley, 1998). Being in a collectivist culture the team members feel closely connected and committed to the realize (Boyacigiller Adler, 1991). There is emphasizes on harmony and cooperation within group members (Kim et al., 1994) and reciprocal cooperation of each member to help on eself in each tasks (Cox et al., 1991). Yet there was a sense of deprivation of direction by the group drawing card. For e.g. the leaders authority or instructions were not adhered to which led to many tasks being unaccomplished. The carefree attitude of the group members was evident throughout the intention. As mentioned by Hamden-Turner Trompendaars (1993), Hofstede, 1980 and Triandis, 1983, the group members considered themselves as independent self-controlling entities and emphasized their identity as unique, independent individual. There was a more of an individualistic orientation whereby individuals focussed on personal gain in combination or regardless of others often taking a competitive stance so as to maximize ones own gain, while smart those of other team members (Pruitt, 1981 Graham, 1986 Graham et al., 1988). Power Distance The dimension of reason space reflects a cultures bankers acceptance of social inequality. In different words, male monarch distance refer s to the limit that those in baseer social groups accept as a given the government agency and status of those in gameyer groups.In societies where tycoon distance is at heights uper side,there is mostly a universal acceptance of notion ,that those with higher status deserve the respect they are afforded without any questionUnquestioning tends to greater levels of loyalty in organizational linguistic context and the taking of actions only after total encomium of the superior. In high power distance cultures, policy of centralized decision making is followed quite an than exception (Hofstede, 1980), presenting formidable barriers to teams that are highly interdependent (Shane, 1993). hence, this should not be taken as a surprise that research suggests that members with a high power distance orientation will o seek approval before initiating any action, since they are accountable to having those at the top of the hierarchy make final decisions (Ueno and Sekaran, 1992). Genera lly, individuals with high power distance orientation are uncomfortable in determining authority and having decision-making powers given to them (Adler, 1997 Hofstede, 1980, 1991). Within the group, team members at times were with a sense of low in power distance and inclined to be more of egalitarian in nature. These group members largely (though not completely) viewed each other as equals. Specifically, members within this cultural dimension interacted vertically within the group work and always want for approval and resources from those in power of other teams (Katz and Tushman, 1983). However, it is argued that the method of equality diminishes graded power in organizations and further it encourage acting without full clear from ones superiors in low power distance cultures. Hence, these members followed agendas of their own and were bypassing the leader (Howell and Higgins, 1991). That said these practices did not preclude those individuals from helping, when needed. Such me mber were always on cargo hold for those in power but only if the need arose (Howell and Higgins, 1991). Consequently, members low in power distance orientation were more effective in adjunct of team actions requiring upward fundamental interactions, while members high in power distance were less effective and indeed reluctant to do so. Uncertainty avoidanceUncertainty avoidance has been defined as the limit to which the members of a culture feel afraid by uncertain or unpredictable situations (Hofstede, 1991 113). Individuals from high perplexity avoidance cultures feel uncomfortable jazzing with uncertain situations, and hence look for clarification when theey are in doubt (Hofstede, 1980). Cultures high on uncertainty avoidance prefers for structure and clarification, which results in an increment of formal rules and regulations in those cultures. In contrast, individuals from low uncertainly avoidance cultures tend to prefer a less regulated or strict organizational structu re, hence opting to cut with ambiguous situations rather than seek clarification (Hofstede, 1991). In terms of uncertainty avoidance, it can be said the group members were nemesisened by the noncitizen situation of a group member leaving the team. In such there was a breakdown of the project events, which led to most low confidence within each members as this member was the group leader and also had strong characteristics. As per Hofstede such situation leads to not only less confidence and less motivation, but also lacks innovative thinking. Thus the uncertainty avoidance led to a resistance in origin and creativity by the team members. It was this uncertainty avoidance, which led to a threat situation for the whole team. dodging/Addressing behaviourAnother dimension, which was noticed during the project work, was avoidance / addressing behaviour. The group either denied there was a conflict subsisting or even acknowledging that a conflict exists. The team members tended to change the subject, when person tried to discuss thereby involving avoidance behaviour cultural dimension. Avoidance tactics holdd topic shifting to avoid the specific issue of conflict, avoiding a member altogether, postponing discussion, talking about abstract things rather than the conflict on hand, silence and denying that a problem exists (Canary, Cunningham Cody, 1988). Avoidance behaviour as per Weldon et al., (1996) exists when members do nothing to deal with the situation. As previously mentioned the group had a more of a collectivist approach. Hence research suggests, collectivists are more of avoiding a conflict than individualists who address it more likely (Adler et al., 1992, Barnland, 1975, Cupach, 1982, Graham, 1984, Graham et al., 1987). Recommendations Guidelines Addressing the above issues, it can be said diverse cultures within a team tend to correspond to basic assumptions preferences and highly influence them to move towards a cultural dimensions addressed above. Let us look at some recommendations based on the theories surrounding these dimensions to provide guidelines for future project. It is important that within a group the collectivist approach seems apt when working towards a project (Trompenaars Hampden-Turner (199752). They further add the manager or leader to be seriously affected by individualist approach. It is important to note certain areas of vital importance like negotiation, decision-making and motivation. As a leader there should be incentive based projects. This should relate to the achievement be it in academic terms or in a company project in monetary terms based on performance. Based on the empirical studies, the issue of power distance relates more towards individualism (Bochner Hesketh, 1994 Bond, wan et al., 1985 Franke, Hofstede et al., 1991). It is this individualistic approach at times, where there should be focus on equality among team members versus hierarchical structure. This is based on the assumpt ion that treating members within a group as equal individuals is the best way to cause them (Hampden Turner Trompenaars, 1993).Research suggests that interaction with impertinent constituents enables members to deal with any away threats or opportunities, which might confront them by allowing members to understand the ambiguities within their environment (Ancona Cadwell 1992a Lyonski et al., 1988). It is the acquisition of information, which reduces the ambiguities and avoids uncertainties. Members should not rely on one team member and should look for support either within themselves or look for outside support from their tutors and avoid ambiguities or uncertainties (Hofstede, 1991). As for avoiding conflict by not addressing it, it is best to move towards a direct behaviour dimension of culture. This should include acknowledging conflict and overt actions in contrast to not acknowledging it (Chua Gudykunst, 1987). As per Weldon et al., 1996, members using overt actions will conduct conflict management behaviour in a professional manner. In conclusion it is important to note that the cultural dimensions play an important role within any team and it project. The interaction of team members effects from a combination of cultural values be it from a specific country. Each team has a varied combination of people and therefore there are various challenges, which may signify different norms and styles. However there needs to be some system on how to make decisions, a leaders attitude on how to deal with conflict etc. Bibliography Applegate, J. L. and Sypher, H. E. (1988) Constructivist theory and intercultural communication research. Beverly Hill sagaciousBaldwin, J. R. (2006). Redefining Culture Perspective across disciplines. New Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum associatesBochner, S. (1994) cross-cultural Differences in the self Concept A Test of Hofstedes Individualism/Collectivism Distinction. Journal of Cross- heathen Psychology. Vol. 25 273-283 Boyacigiller , N. Adler, N. (1991) The Parochial Dinosaur Organizational Science in a orbiculate Context. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 16 (2) 262-290 Charles, L. Y. (2003) The art of investigative interviewing. Burlington Butterworth-HeinemannCox, T. H., Lobel S. McLeod, P. (1991) Effects of cultural Group Cultural Differences on Cooperative Behaviour on a Group Task. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 34 (4) 827-847Gibson, R. (2002) Intercultural business communication. Oxford Oxford University Press.Golden, T. Veiga J. (2005) Spanning Boundaries and Borders Toward Understanding the Cultural Dimensions of police squad Boundary Spanning. Journal of Managerial issues. Vol. 17GudyKunst, W. B. (2005) Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. capital of the United Kingdom Sage take Ltd.Gudykunst, W. B. (2003) Cross Culture and Intercultural Communications. London Sage Publication Ltd.Jehn, K. Weldon, E. (1995) Conflict Management in Bicultural Teams The International Journal of Co nflict Management. Vol. 6 Issue 4Kim, U. et al, (1994) Individualism and Collectivism Theory, Method and Applications. Newbury Park, CA Sage Press. Kim, Y. and Gudykunst, W. (1988) Theoretical perspectives in intercultural communication(pp. 41-65). Beverly Hills SageTian, R.G. (2000) Understanding consumer behaviour psycho-anthropological approach northward American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 2 No.2, pp.273-9.Trompenaars, F. Hampden-Turner, C. (1997) Riding the Waves of Culture (Understanding Cultural revolution in Business). 2nd ed. London Nicholas Brealey PublishingTrompenaars, F. Wooliams, P. (2003) Business Across Cultures. England copestone Publishing Ltd. Tuckman, B.W. Jensin, M.A.C. (1977) Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, Vol.2, pp 419-427. Wing, L. (2005) lead in high-performance Teams A model for superior team performance. Team performance Management. Vol. 11 No.1/2 pp 4-11.