Working with Different Cultures - Coursework Example

Working with Different Cultures Name Institution Abstract Engineers face a range of difficulties while interacting with clients or colleagues from different cultures, which may hinder their productivity. In order for engineers to work with people from different cultures, they have to develop global competency or cross-cultural proficiency to work productively with clients, counterparts, employers, and stakeholders from other countries. In all, engineer can adopt three key guidelines to ensure cross-cultural proficiency while working with people from other cultures. First, they should acquire accurate and interpretive knowledge regarding a target foreign culture. Next, they should avoid bias, prejudice, or prejudgment. Third, they should also widen their cross-cultural or interpersonal skills since they need to interact with people from different cultures. There key challenges linked to cultural adaptations include individualism, where engineers who work overseas in a country that values collectivism may come from a work workforce, which is comparatively individualistic. When it comes to ethnocentrism, problems arise when engineers tend to believe that the conditions or perspectives in their home countries are the best. Cultural shock also causes a challenge when engineers have a feeling of awkwardness or a sense of insecurity when they encounter a foreign culture. Lastly, cultural distance also forms barrier to working effectively with people from foreign cultures when engineers fail to understand the new cultures. The challenges cause different divergent views on timelines, and variations in dialects, attitudes towards work and authority and lastly, different communication styles. Table of Contents Abstract 2 Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 Working and relating with people from different cultures 5 a) First Guideline 6 b) Second Guideline 7 c) Third guideline 9 Challenges associated with working in the global community 10 a) Individualism 10 b) Parochialism 10 c) Ethnocentrism 11 d) Cultural shock 12 e) Cultural Distance 12 Recommendations 13 Conclusion 14 References 15 Introduction By virtue of their professionalism and in the face of increased globalisation and interaction with other cultures from across the globe, engineers are expected to work productively with clients or counterparts from completely different cultures. Indeed, surveys have showed that current engineering programs in Europe, Australasia, United States, and Latin America have responded to the increase multicultural interaction by preparing engineering students to work productively with people from different cultures globally (Downey et al. (2006). Globally, despite the fact that engineers share similar scientific principles and disciplines, they come from different cultures. While engineering associates from Australia, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States share similar scientific principles and disciplines, they work in cultures that are distinctly dissimilar from each other (Downey et al. (2006). For instance, two engineering teams from diverse cultures will work with certain sets of rules, expectations, and norms. However, people tend to assume that other people must adhere to the same rules and sets of standards, which leads to conflicts when their expectations are not met. Engineers face a range of difficulties while interacting with clients or colleagues from different cultures, which may hinder their productivity. The challenges they encounter while working with clients from diverse cultures include different divergent views on timelines, and variations in dialects, attitudes towards work and authority and lastly, different communication styles (Downey et al. (2006). This paper examines how engineers can work and relate with individuals from different cultures. It further covers the challenges linked to working in the global community with reference to cross-cultural awareness including indigenous communities. Working and relating with people from different cultures According to Delahousse and Meganck (2009), for engineers to develop global competency, they need to deal with no less than two separate sets of issues. The first entails the problems associated with working with different cultures, while the second involves particularly what attaining global competency adds to engineering professionalism. When it comes to the issues of working with different cultures, the question of attaining global competency comes up as an issue of engaging different people from different cultures. For instance, Downey et al (2006) suggests that engineers need to have the capacity to work productively with clients, employers, colleagues, and people from fundamentally diverse cultures. As Downey et al (2006) comment, cross-cultural proficiency enables engineers to connect with clients, counterparts, employers, and stakeholders from other countries. The researchers went on to show how some seasoned engineers have attested to the significance of having profound knowledge regarding foreign cultures and languages while engaging in international projects. Downey et al (2006)’s argument is relevant to this end as it points to the idea that experienced engineers obtain pertinent knowledge and skills to steer clear of unacceptable and offensive tendencies while interacting with clients or associates from different cultures. Towards this end, three guidelines are suggested that engineers can apply to ensure consistent cross-cultural success at the workplace. a) First Guideline According to Singh (2009), engineers should acquire accurate and interpretive knowledge regarding a target foreign culture. One effective strategy for achieving this, according to Singh (2009), is trying to speak the target foreign language. In another review of how engineers can work in cross-cultural workplace, Vass et al (2011) suggested that effective workers attain basic knowledge of the outlook, values, and way of life of foreign cultures when they interact and learn to communicate with their foreign counterparts. In supporting such assumption, Downey et al (2006)’s argument can be drawn. In his view, engineers should learn about the economic and political backdrop of targeted foreign countries, including the current national affairs, national history, as well as how they perceive and relate with foreign cultures. This kind of knowledge, Burke (2007) suggests, enables an insight into the clients’ attitudes, objectives, and organization. In the ultimate end, events and decisions become significantly interpretable. At the same time, engineers get to develop genuine interest in the foreign culture, which is instrumental in establishing high opinion and trust. This lays foundation for having trusting and dynamic working relationships. To this end, Delahousse and Meganck (2009) argue that engineers can even make modest efforts to converse in the foreign language. At the same time, higher expertise in speaking a foreign language facilitates acquisition of competitive advantages. Ultimately, managers who speak in multiple languages, which are likely to bargain for successful work engagement, as well as successful business relationships. b) Second Guideline Engineers should avoid bias, prejudice, or prejudgment. According to a review by Singh (2009), bias and prejudices are the major causes of culture-related issues while working with people from different cultures. Avoiding prejudgements by using own cultural perspectives, as a yardstick for measuring other people’s cultures is critical. For instance, when an individual’s culture stresses on productivity and precision, individuals from cultures that do no observe fixed schedule may appear ineffective or lazy when in actual sense they are not, since their cultures values working for extra hours. According to Burke (2007), acknowledging that cultural difference exists and there is, therefore, a need for compromise is critical. In Singh’s (2009) view, the culture-related problems emerge when engineers assume that their foreign counterparts behave in the same way they do. Such ethnocentric suppositions bring about ineffective business strategies in regards to planning and implementation. In the end, they get to disfigure communications with their foreign counterparts. On the other hand, the engineers who are new to global business usually view how foreigners’ behaviour has been tricky to get along with. In return, they may perceive the behaviour of others as being odd and inappropriate. For instance, getting offended when their foreign clients or associates do not appreciate their history or working cultures is easier (Vass et al 2011). Such a scenario gets in the way of the capacity of the manager to interact efficiently with the foreign colleagues or clients. A possible outcome is communication breakdown. Hence, cultural bias poses as a considerable obstacle to flourishing communication while working with people from other cultures. Such an assumption is consistent with an earlier view promoted by Burke (2007), who suggested that an individual’s own culture preconditions his reaction to diverse behaviours or standards. Effective communication strategies also help build trusts and prevent misunderstanding and confusion while working with individuals from different cultures. At the same time, tolerance and patience are crucial for understanding other people communication styles (Vass et al., 2011). For instance, by listening carefully when other co-workers speak, it becomes easy to eliminate misunderstanding. Some cultures tend to give background information before outlining the most important point. Cutting them short may be considered rude. According to Burke (2007), power imbalance exists between different cultures. Understanding how power imbalance makes it difficult for indigenous people to trust and work with an individual is vital in creating credibility. Although different cultures have different perspectives regarding power, there are some common ideas they share, outside the subject of power. For instance, while the indigenous people’s views on what constitutes ‘effective’ management may differ from other cultures, they may share a common interest with other cultures regarding what constitutes “effective” natural resources management. Hence, natural resources management should be a good starting point to start a conversation. Most individuals reflexively imagine that their counterparts from different cultures share similar perceptions of the world. They therefore, take their cultures as the benchmark for judging other cultures. Singh (2009) calls such tendency as a self-reference criterion, which he further describes as the propensity to perceive foreign cultures through the lens of own cultures. Singh (2009) further comments that when engineers understand the self-reference criterion, they get to avoid cultural bias. At this stage, Singh (2009) calls on critical incident analysis (CIA), which refers to analytical method for analysis of situations where empathy for other cultures’ points of view is developed. CIA is a deliberate approach for avoidance of the likelihood of self-reference criterion while working in multicultural settings. It can therefore, be reasoned that CIA facilitates a focused reaction to differences between cultures by allowing the engineers to build empathy for foreign counterparts’ viewpoints. c) Third guideline Engineers should also widen their cross-cultural or interpersonal skills. As Singh (2009) mentions, engineers who have to work efficiently with people from different cultures need to commit to their professional development. In fact, different cultures have different ways of undertaking business transactions, negating contracts and resolving disputes. To this end, cross-cultural competence is categorized based on four main personality traits. The first one includes tolerance for ambiguity, which Singh (2009) describes as the capacity to endure uncertainty and perceptible ambiguity in the work philosophies of the foreign counterparts. The second is perceptiveness, which, according to Singh (2009), describes the capacity to closely scrutinize and understand restrained information in behaviour or conversations of the foreign counterpart. Understanding own cultures is crucial as it provides one with a framework that can be used to predict how they will respond to other’s behaviours, or how they are likely to behave in different situations. According to Burke (2007), the culturally determined appraisals of value are usually made reflexively. Working with individuals from different cultures requires learning from own cultures and predicting how people from different cultures are likely to react. Third is valuing personal relationships, which is defined as the capability to identify the significance of building interpersonal relationships at work. It is usually more vital than attaining a one-time argument while working with foreign counterparts. Fourth is adaptability and flexibility, which is the capability to be creative, as well as to device innovative solutions or to be unprejudiced regarding outcomes, as well as to show elegance even when working under pressure (Singh, 2009). Challenges associated with working in the global community There are several challenges linked to cultural adaptations: individualism, parochialism, cultural shock, and ethnocentrism. a) Individualism Regarding individualism, specific engineers intended to work abroad may come from a workforce that is comparatively individualistic. This is specifically so for engineers from the Western countries, such as the United States, Australia, or United Kingdom, according to Hofstede's dimensions of working in international culture (Soares et al, 2007). The same would apply when non-indigenous Australians from individualistic British cultures work with the Aboriginal Australians who have grown in “collectivist” kinship system (Fogarty & White, 1994). Engineers from the individualistic cultures are likely to place emphasis on personal welfare and fulfilling their personal needs, which would make it difficult to work in Indigenous communities that value fulfilling communal needs. b) Parochialism When it comes to parochialism, the problem associated with working in cross-cultural settings comes up when engineers have to work in settings with social systems that are diverse from one where their organisations are based (Jankiram & Rao, 2007). The divergent social systems, in this regards, affect the reactions of all individuals concerned. Therefore, when the non-Indigenous engineers are posted to work in indigenous communities, they may tend to display a range of behaviours that reflect that of their own cultures rather than indigenous cultures. This may trigger conflicting ideologies. In such a situation, engineers may fail to identify underlying divergence between their cultures and the indigenous cultures (Fan, 2008). Conversely, when they do so, they are likely to perceive that the implications of such differences are trivial. To all intents and purposes, the engineers may assume that their cultures and the indigenous culture are the same. c) Ethnocentrism Ethnocentrism is an additional key challenge for adapting to other cultures. According to Neuliep et al (2001), ethnocentrism comes about when engineers tend to believe that the perspectives or conditions in their home countries are the most excellent. Singh (2009) labelled such an assumption as a “self-reference criterion.” Indeed, while such an assumption is natural when non-Indigenous engineers work with Indigenous Australians who have different cultures, it gets in the way of attaining proper understanding of how Indigenous clients, employers, or associates from other cultures behave or achieve productivity (Gupta, 2000). To this end, to adapt to the new social system, engineers working with other cultures need to understand the local conditions in the foreign countries. In spite of such an understanding, engineers need to be adaptable to integrate the interests of their cultures, as well as that of the foreign cultures. d) Cultural shock According to Singh (2009), when people go to work in a foreign country, they are inclined to suffer from cultural shock. In his view, cultural shock consists of the feeling of awkwardness or a sense of insecurity resulting from an encounter with a foreign culture. In such a situation, engineers may lack knowledge on how to react. Hence, they may lose self-confidence or become upset emotionally. Muecke et al (2010) argues that under such circumstance, some Indigenous workers may tend to isolate themselves while others may seek to go back home when appointed to work in projects dominated by non-Indigenous engineers. According to Singh (2009), cultural shock result from the divergence attitudes towards working or work output, when individuals are separated from colleagues or friends, alternative lifestyles, culinary skills or dressing patterns, as well as the different currency systems. e) Cultural Distance According to Hofstede (2011), cultural distance forms barrier to working effectively with people from foreign cultures. Singh (2009) adds that if engineers have to predict the level of adaptation needed when moving to working in other countries, they should gain an insight into the cultural distance separating their country and the target foreign country. It is the level of the disparity, between any two cultures, which determines the extent to which the cultures are likely to integrate. This also means that non-Indigenous engineers who originate from Western countries such as Britain are likely to find difficulties in working collaboratively with indigenous Australians because of large cultural distance. However, non-Indigenous Australians from China who believe in collective kinships like the Indigenous people are likely to experience less difficulty working together because of small cultural distance (Fan, 2008). Hence, difficulty in working increases when the cultural distance is huge (Prasad, 2007). Hence, individualism, parochialism, cultural shock, and ethnocentrism cause different divergent views on timelines, and variations in dialects, attitudes towards work and authority and lastly, different communication styles. Recommendations The engineers should therefore, go through cultural training to avoid the problems of individualism, parochialism, cultural shock, and ethnocentrism. The training should place emphasis on human relations skills, which are more significant, compared to pure information since skills are transferrable across countries, while at the same time information tends to be culture-specific. Delahousse and Meganck (2009) takes this perspective to argue that engineers should use varied resources to develop skills, among them are by hiring cross-cultural consultants, online course or using videotape courses. Downey et al (2006) also the conception that in the process of working with different cultures, engineers should engage in planning and seek informal mentoring from the more experienced engineers or even formal training using training simulations to enable them encounter simulated cross-cultural challenges. Engineers should also endeavour attain efficient cross-cultural interaction, maintain an open mind, and become increasingly curious and more reluctant to jump at conclusions regarding the behaviours of their foreign associated. As these would enable them to acquire accurate and interpretive knowledge regarding a target foreign culture, learn about the economic and political backdrop of targeted foreign countries, including the current national affairs, national history, as well as how they perceive and relate with foreign cultures, avoid bias, prejudice, or prejudgment, and lastly widen their cross-cultural or interpersonal skills. Conclusion In order for engineers to work with people from different cultures, they have to develop global competency, which demands that they address two key issues. The first entails the problems of associated with working with different cultures, while the second involves particularly what attaining global competency adds to engineering professionalism. Towards this end, three guidelines are suggested that engineers can apply to ensure consistent cross-cultural success at the workplace. According to Singh (2009), engineers should acquire accurate and interpretive knowledge regarding a target foreign culture. Next, Engineers should avoid bias, prejudice, or prejudgment. Indeed, bias and prejudices are the major causes of culture-related issues while working with people from different cultures. Third, engineers should also widen their cross-cultural or interpersonal skills since they need to interact with people from different cultures. Essentially, different cultures have own ways of undertaking business transactions, negating contracts and resolving disputes. There key challenges linked to cultural adaptations include individualism, parochialism, cultural shock, and ethnocentrism. On the subject of individualism, engineers intended to work overseas in a country that values collectivism may come from a work workforce, which is comparatively individualistic. This makes it difficult to adjust. Concerning parochialism, the divergence of social systems also poses a challenge. In regards to ethnocentrism, problems arise when engineers tend to believe that the conditions or perspectives in their home countries are the best. Cultural shock also causes a challenge when engineers have a feeling of awkwardness or a sense of insecurity when they encounter a foreign culture. Lastly, cultural distance also forms barrier to working effectively with people from foreign cultures when engineers fail to understand the new cultures. References Burke, S. (2007). Changing Practices, Changing Paradigms: Working Effectively with Indigenous Clients. Australian Psychological Society Delahousse, B. & Meganck, M. (2009). Engineering in Context. New York: Academica Downey, G., Lucena, J., Moskal, J., Moskal, B., Lehr, J., Nichols-Belo, A. (2006). The Globally Competent Engineer: Working Effectively with People Who Define Problems Differently. Journal of Engineering Education, pp.1-16 Fan, B. (2008). Ethnical match effect of Chinese counselor in working with Indigenous Australians in Australia. Counselling, Psychotherapy, and Health, 4(1), 91-98. Fogarty, G., & White, C. (1994). Difference between values of Australian Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal students. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 25 (3), 394-408 Gupta. A. (2000). Multiculturalism Conflict Management. Delhi Business Review 1(2), 1-4 Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1-26 Jankiram, B. & Rao, V. (2007). Management and Behavioural Processes. New Delhi: Excel Books India Muecke, A., Lenthall, S., Lindeman, M. (2010). Culture shock and healthcare workers in remote Indigenous communities of Australia: what do we know and how can we measure it? Rural and Remote Health 11, 1607-1609 Neuliep, J., Chaudoir, M. & McCroskey, J. (2001). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Ethnocentrism among Japanese and United States College Students. Communication and Research Reports 18(2), 137-147 Prasad, M. (2007). The Role of Cultural Diversity in Enhancing Engineering Education. Retrieved: Singh, D. (2009). Managing Cross-cultural Diversity: Issues and Challenges in Global Organizations. Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, pp.43-50 Soares, A., Farhangmehr. M. & Shoham, A. (2007). Hofstede's dimensions of culture in international marketing studies. Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 277–284 Vass, A., Mitchell, A. & Dhurrkay, Y. (2011). Health literacy and Australian Indigenous peoples: an analysis of the role of language and worldview. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 22(1), 33-38 Read More

For instance, Downey et al (2006) suggests that engineers need to have the capacity to work productively with clients, employers, colleagues, and people from fundamentally diverse cultures. As Downey et al (2006) comment, cross-cultural proficiency enables engineers to connect with clients, counterparts, employers, and stakeholders from other countries. The researchers went on to show how some seasoned engineers have attested to the significance of having profound knowledge regarding foreign cultures and languages while engaging in international projects.

Downey et al (2006)’s argument is relevant to this end as it points to the idea that experienced engineers obtain pertinent knowledge and skills to steer clear of unacceptable and offensive tendencies while interacting with clients or associates from different cultures. Towards this end, three guidelines are suggested that engineers can apply to ensure consistent cross-cultural success at the workplace. a) First Guideline According to Singh (2009), engineers should acquire accurate and interpretive knowledge regarding a target foreign culture.

One effective strategy for achieving this, according to Singh (2009), is trying to speak the target foreign language. In another review of how engineers can work in cross-cultural workplace, Vass et al (2011) suggested that effective workers attain basic knowledge of the outlook, values, and way of life of foreign cultures when they interact and learn to communicate with their foreign counterparts. In supporting such assumption, Downey et al (2006)’s argument can be drawn. In his view, engineers should learn about the economic and political backdrop of targeted foreign countries, including the current national affairs, national history, as well as how they perceive and relate with foreign cultures.

This kind of knowledge, Burke (2007) suggests, enables an insight into the clients’ attitudes, objectives, and organization. In the ultimate end, events and decisions become significantly interpretable. At the same time, engineers get to develop genuine interest in the foreign culture, which is instrumental in establishing high opinion and trust. This lays foundation for having trusting and dynamic working relationships. To this end, Delahousse and Meganck (2009) argue that engineers can even make modest efforts to converse in the foreign language.

At the same time, higher expertise in speaking a foreign language facilitates acquisition of competitive advantages. Ultimately, managers who speak in multiple languages, which are likely to bargain for successful work engagement, as well as successful business relationships. b) Second Guideline Engineers should avoid bias, prejudice, or prejudgment. According to a review by Singh (2009), bias and prejudices are the major causes of culture-related issues while working with people from different cultures.

Avoiding prejudgements by using own cultural perspectives, as a yardstick for measuring other people’s cultures is critical. For instance, when an individual’s culture stresses on productivity and precision, individuals from cultures that do no observe fixed schedule may appear ineffective or lazy when in actual sense they are not, since their cultures values working for extra hours. According to Burke (2007), acknowledging that cultural difference exists and there is, therefore, a need for compromise is critical.

In Singh’s (2009) view, the culture-related problems emerge when engineers assume that their foreign counterparts behave in the same way they do. Such ethnocentric suppositions bring about ineffective business strategies in regards to planning and implementation. In the end, they get to disfigure communications with their foreign counterparts. On the other hand, the engineers who are new to global business usually view how foreigners’ behaviour has been tricky to get along with. In return, they may perceive the behaviour of others as being odd and inappropriate.

For instance, getting offended when their foreign clients or associates do not appreciate their history or working cultures is easier (Vass et al 2011).

Read More