Culture Differences and People Management - Literature review Example

Introduction

Integrating into a new culture or developing a better understanding of one’s own culture can result in profound positive and life-changing experiences. While this may occur to any individual upon changing a locality, it is more pronounced in students pursuing studies abroad (any place other than the person’s place of birth). While abroad, such individuals interact with a wide array of manners, customs, laws, beliefs, religion, concepts of self, family and social organizations, etc. all of which combine to form distinct culture. While introduction to foreign culture offers great benefits to individuals, oftentimes it is overwhelming (Molinsky, 2013). The enormous cultural differences between one’s own and the new one might require extra time to adjust. Among the common impediments to the integration process are cross-cultural sensitivities, differences in norms and behaviours, difficulties in learning and assimilation, communication barriers, culture shock, inherent misunderstanding and conflicts, etc. Central to this paper is the extent to which these elements impede cross-cultural integration in the contemporary world.

The need for cross-cultural social integration

The cornerstone of global education/progress is essentially the diversity of students/persons, and thus of viewpoints, hence the need for acceptance and integration of international students/individuals in whichever setting as a means of encouraging internationalisation of societies. In no place do we see distinct non-integration of individuals more than in institutions of higher learning. While assessing the place of international students in UK society, Shaw (2013: 1) observes that the ultimate determinant of student friendship groups is nationality. The author however poses the question of whether this boils down to inherent cultural differences or subtle practical arrangements such as student housing. In the wake of the realization that integration levels of foreign students remains low in the UK despite the fact that nearly one in five students are international students, from European and non-European countries (British Council, 2014: 5), one deductible fact is that a wide array of factors must be at play.

The importance of cross-cultural integration, both materially and non-materially, to begin with, enhances unity and creates a certain balance between the involved persons. Cultural integration is crucial to holding together the society in such a way that they get to share positive beliefs and values that support the social system. It thus reduces conflict between culturally different members of a society. Within the business context, Bakić-Mirić (2012: 125) observes that cultural integration enables effective management of people within multicultural organizations for better organizational effectiveness. The author cites the difficulty in cross-cultural communication as one of the many problems associated with working or dealing with foreign environments. He thus argues that effective management of such problems, most of which are the result of differences in customs, values and behaviours is only achievable through effective intercultural communication and integration.

Another important factor of cultural integration emerges from the need for socialisation, i.e. the assembly of different members of a society into a common bond. According to Michie (2014: 333), the functionalist thought on people integration draws people towards a common way of thinking, which in turn reduces deviance within the society. The essence is that such integration allows individuals to live harmoniously, complimenting one another in the process. In the face of a globalized world, the need for cultural integration transcends individual fulfilment and encompasses conversations geared towards challenging economic and educational realities, social disparities and all forms of diversity, as well as the pervasiveness and interconnectedness resulting from technology. The rich history of misgivings resulting from simple errors in engagement, or disengagements between persons from different cultural backgrounds offers rich grounds for investigating the impediments thereof.

Impediments to cross-cultural integration

One of the impediments to cultural integration relates to cultural sensitivity discourses, an example of which is ethnocentrism. Cultural sensitivity refers loosely to particular skill set that allows one to understand and learn about people of a different culture. Ethnocentrism arises when an individual is unable to understand culturally determined differences in communication practices, traditions or thought processing, majorly the result of inherent beliefs in the perceived superiority of one’s cultural practices. Ethnocentrism deters cultural integration in three different phases. Hourigan, Murray and Riordan (2011: 51-52) while analyzing quality issues in ICT integration describes the first phase as characterized by the view that one’s own culture is central to all reality. The individual thus tends to deny the existence of cultural differences or berates their importance. The second phase, termed the defense phase, shows some level of awareness of cultural differences, but the same are perceived as threatening the person’s sense of reality, resulting in negate stereotyping. The third phase entails acknowledgement of the differences but with a perception that they are of little importance.

While many might think that ethnocentrism only affects the bigoted or only those who are ignorant of other cultures, the truth is that misunderstanding of certain elements of cross-cultural communication can affect even the enlightened individuals. It is deceptive in that it makes an individual assume his/her own cultural behaviors as more logical (Shepard, 2010: 76), an aspect that may jeopardize relations at different levels and realms. Take for instance, the different ways of cultural communication exhibited by Western and Chinese societies. While Western societies pay much attention to the law when executing business transactions, the Chinese pay more attention to etiquette (Xie, 2013: 45).Essentially, the persistence of such behaviors among individuals from either side in an environment that requires compromise would definitely result in massive misunderstanding.

Communication disparities, especially in non-verbal communication, also influence the course of cultural integration significantly. Nonverbal behavior is one of the dimensions of intercultural communication that exhibit remarkable variations. Samovar, Porter, McDaniel and Roy (2016: 301) relent the ambiguity of nonverbal communication given that oftentimes the knowledge expressed through word of mouth is a portion of what the individual actually communicates. Integral to communication are such elements as choice of clothing, touching behaviors, eye contact, body language and conception of personal space irrespective of the culture, though the same often carry different information. However, most people often find it difficult to take their time and learn the constructs of the prevailing attitudes in such situations, thus missing information crucial to the establishment of quality, constructive relationships with the said culture. Noteworthy is that prudent businesspersons and outgoing individuals often tend to familiarize themselves with the same.

Difficulties in assimilation and learning are another factor that tends to impede the establishment of well-integrated societies. In this case, the major culprit is often the language of communication. Language failures between different cultures often take the form of translation problems, subtle distinctions from one language to another and culturally based variations within the same language. Gross translation errors have the effect of casting doubt on the intended message and even in cases where their identification is rather easy, the time wasted has an impact on the patience and tolerance exhibited by either party. While it is true that increased contact between persons from different cultural backgrounds can improve their mutual acceptance and reduce tension or prejudice related to language mistakes (Jackson, 2014: 361), much is necessary to ensure that the context (physical, psychological, socio-relational, etc. environments) is clear. Language incoherence tends to curtail the achievement of such scenarios, further complicating the process of integrating two culturally different schools of thought.

Language divergence also weakens the establishment of effective understanding between individuals. Dialectical differences can result in gross misunderstandings especially when one individual perceived the inexistence of such subtle distinctions. The result is that while one might be struggling to articulate self, the other, often the more versant in the language, may not perceive such as attempts to stress their identity and emphasize their solidarity. In such cases, the social distance between the two widens, setting them on a course of further collisions. In line with the same, contested identities also impede integration. As noted by Arber, Blackmore and Vongalis-Macrow (2014: 45), one’s identity is subject to change across numerous personal or environmental boundaries, at which times such changes do not align with collective goals such as that of cultural integration, but of personal objectives.

Negative attitudes towards dialects and accents can also create barriers to effective integration of persons in certain foreign cultures. For instance, many languages and thus cultures harbor beliefs that certain accents are evidence of loyalty or familiarity to a given nation or region often held with contempt. For instance, the use of subcontinental Indian English in the US might suggest a lack of familiarity even when the individual is fluent. When response to such is excessively negative, the individual might shun away from interacting with others for fear of equivalent retribution. The result is that no interaction takes place between the two culturally different persons, hence no common ground exist for effective integration. Such misguided perceptions have the impact of alienating individuals even further. A case in practice today is treatment accorded to purely Arabic speakers in most Western societies. Even when the individual in question is a well-meaning non-citizen, the language or accent difference sets the apart, thus widening their social interaction gap.

Sociolinguistics, the social pattern of language, also tends to reinforce prejudices and class distinction within certain societies, most of which foreigners are not aware. With sociolinguistics, conversations often assume physiological features such as age and gender or sociological criteria such as race, status or religion, often designed for particular group membership (Nguyen, 2015: 19). For instance, in the US, due to regional prejudice or racism, certain accents in the country are perceived to have strong links with urban or rural regions, and in some cases minority groups tend to reinforce stereotypic overtures in relation to businesses, intelligence or education levels, etc. Other cultures also use sociolinguistics to advance economic class segregation, such as in the UK, yet foreigners are not aware of the same. Essentially, the moment language becomes a tool of differentiation, based on race or social status, integrating the different speakers becomes an uphill task.

Differences in norms for certain behaviours also influence the course of cultural integration in any given setting. Norms, as observed by Morris, Hong, Chiu and Liu (2015: 1), exist in the objective social environment predominantly in such forms as behavioral regularities, rules, sanction patterns and institutionalized practices. Subjectively, norms exist in such forms as perceived descriptive, perceived injunctive and personal. The thought and behavior patterns of a community emanate from shared social contexts and not solely from individuals’ inner selves. In fact, the simple reason that norms are conceptually context-specific behaviour regulators makes their evaluation in the individual and team concepts a lot easier. As observed by Barnow and Balkir (2012: 213), intensive integration discourses such as acculturation depend on social and personal variations found within a society of origin or settlement.

The rich origin of norms together with the inherent diversity obviously points to the likelihood of different behaviors as well as the conception of the behaviors. Take for instance, vies on social organization within a given setting. Individuals from the US may not be comfortable with maintaining neutrality in a setting where the prevailing cultural structures are not reflective of the American values of equality. A classic example is the socially determined inferior role of women prevalent in Middle Eastern countries, which most of the natives perceive as the normal social construct. Attaining a common ground when such is the source of conflict might be untenable unless one opts to let up his/her side of the bargain. Similarly, an individual may harbor the belief that a given social system existing in a specific country is not objective enough, to which the failure to adapt to the existing system might only imperil the relationship.

Culture shock also impedes the development of integrated societies, majorly by inspiring withdrawal and passive tendencies among individuals new to a given culture. Blake (2012: 7) observes that the reaction to changes in cultural environments occurs through four stages namely the honeymoon stage, the culture shock stage, the integration stage and the acceptance stage. While progression through the stages shows that ultimately the individual becomes acquainted with the new culture, often it is not that smooth. When the new culture differs significantly from the individual’s primary culture, the resulting culture shock could be so massive that overcoming it becomes untenable. In such cases permanent withdrawal, passiveness or uncharacteristic aggressiveness may become the preferred defense mechanisms (Dutton, 2012). The individual is thus unable to integrate into the new culture, which denies him/her the opportunity to access the benefits of socio-cultural interactions.

Culture shock, according to Aline and Stanley (2012: 716), manifests itself in both psychosocial and physicals symptoms. The psychosocial symptoms include sadness, loneliness, a sense of isolation, negative self-image, depression, cognitive fogginess, and dissatisfaction with life, among others. These dynamics hinder the maintenance or development of a healthy psychological state, which according to Kim (2007: 241), is the dynamic balance between internal system and external realities, an aspect essential for the attainment of internal coherence and the establishment of positive relationship with the external environment. The physical symptoms of culture shock may include fatigue, aches and pains, drug abuse, increased need for sleep or lack of sleep, excessive dieting and increased susceptibility to illness. Hu, Grove and Zhuang (2010) notes that evidence to culture shock is an unceasing environmental novelty that pushes an individual’s brain and other sensory organs into a state of constant vigilance, the result of which is increase expenditure of energy, which in in turn leads to physical and mental exhaustion. Precisely, culture shock is a state of exhaustion, debilitation and general body system failure.

Conclusion

Cultural integration oftentimes is characterised by numerous challenges that impede its achievement, both from the social or individual perspective. Despite the fact that the need for cultural integration remains crucial for such processes as societal co-existence, enhancement of learning and/or work environments, effective management of people relations, among others, systemic challenges exist that must be overcome. Ranging from cultural sensitivity discourses to difficulty in assimilation, learning norms for behaviors to communication and culture shock, the course of establishing an integrated society of individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds remains a formidable challenge. The explorative course adopted by this discussion reveals that the quest for cultural integration, though tenable with ultimate hard work and commitment from individuals and the society, is a torturous process with far reaching consequences.