Cross Cultural Managment - Term Paper Example

Cross cultural management In any organization, people are the basis in which organizations run. Studies indicate that culture cannot be alienated from the existence of humanity. In the case of organizations, therefore, the work force is inclusive of persons of diverse backgrounds, and these individuals are certainly vary in the manner in which they handle situations they find themselves in, or face. Cultural intelligence is described as the ability of individuals to fit in the organization (Martin, pp.7). Triandis (pp.20) indicates that individuals are of varying social class, language amongst other attributes, but the fact remains that these individuals have to coexist if the organizational goals and objectives have to be attained. In this context, therefore, cultural intelligence can be described as the ability of individuals in the working place to develop a sensible working condition despite their affiliations (Ang & Livermore, pp.38; Earley, Ang & Tan, pp.3). This essay shall aim at analyzing two articles in an attempt to find out which article is the most applicable to proving the importance of ‘Cultural Intelligence’ (CQ) to the manager of Global Alliances. The essay shall incorporate both theoretical and practical justifications on the importance of ‘Cultural Intelligence’ (CQ) in any organization. According to Triandis, just like in Peterson, (pp.177) and Lundby (pp.301), cultural intelligence is vital for survival of any organization. In his work, he indicates that no flourishing interaction can exist without the staff embracing the aspects of cultural intelligence. Triandis (pp.20) indicates that if the organization has to be successful in inculcating feelings of cultural intelligence among the workers, they have to be keen to detect any kind of flaws that might be existent in the workplace that might harbor successful incorporation of basics that can inculcate roots of cultural intelligence among the workers. In this context, therefore, he gives quite a number of attributes that culturally intelligent persons should embrace. First, culturally intelligent persons, according to Triandis (pp.20) must embrace the attitude of suspending judgment. This refers to the ability of individuals to withhold information until they have enough evidence of the entire case. This entails the ability of the individuals to understand the perceptions and behaviors of the concerned parties in regard to their cultural backgrounds. Of essence, he emphasizes that in the case of varying cultures, individuals must be quick to focus more on the context of their workforce unlike content of what they might have communicated. At times individuals are likely to behave according to the way other people behave in varying cultures, a factor Triandis (pp.20) refers to as ideocentrism. He also explains the concept allocentrism that may alter thriving of cultural intelligence in the workplace. On a practical aspect, in the case of a manager, it would be beneficial if one assesses all kinds of information given by the concerned parties, before making a judgment especially if disputes exist between sections of employees. Collecting tangible evidence unlike insinuations or clues would be beneficial to the manager. Secondly, culturally intelligent persons must be keen to identify behaviors that exist in the tough situations in the workplace (Livermore, pp.53). This interprets that, in the course of coexisting in the working environment, there are higher chances that individuals may conflict as a result of interactions in the society. Triandis (pp.22) indicates that chances are probable that individuals are likely to conflict in the quest to make their opinions heard in the workplace. Practically, the managers may consider gathering all kinds of information that would allow them make judgments that are biased, but for the good of the entire workplace. On another view point, a culturally intelligent person is one that is able to handle circumstances that emanate from cultural variances. Triandis (pp.22) argues that, overcoming cultural barriers is possible if an individual is able to fit in the culture of individuals of varying culture. This is only possible through going through a process of training so that the managers can understand what kind of behavioral attributes to apply in different occasions (Triandis, pp.23). Managers must endeavor to expose themselves to various cultural norms if they have to coexist with different people. In turn, it is vivid that the managers remain alert in case of any form of circumstances that can cause trouble in the workplace. In the course of his research, Triandis does not mention the existence of tools that can measure cultural intelligence, but the need for training so that managers can embrace the need to be culturally intelligent. Cultural intelligence is quite a broad term that needs a lot of research and comparison of previously compiled data so as to come up with the best measures to determine who is emotionally intelligent and who is not (Livermore,pp.59). With the diverse cultures, and intercultural interactions, it may be extremely tasking to come up with appropriate strategies that can measure up to the standards of all the cultures existing in the society today. It may take too long for researchers to gather all information that pertains to cultural norms of all the existent cultures in the society today. In this case, it is extremely difficult to come up with a universal tool that can incorporate all cultures in context. It is vital to assess if a tool works or not. Ward, et al (pp.85) attest to the fact that the CQ is a functional tool. This, they prove by giving facts on the functionality of the tool. Ward, et al explain the fact that CQ has managed to explain the disparities that individuals face in an attempt to deal with the new cultural settings. Through CQ, Ward, et al (pp.85) portray the view that it is possible to understand the transition of individuals from one stage to another in terms of adaptation to cultural settings. Through application of the concepts of CQ on cognitive, motivational and behavioral attributes, it has been made extremely easy to determine the ability of individuals to transit from one cultural context to another. Through these concepts, it is possible to understand the norms, awareness of interactions between persons, and judgment of the reasons behind making judgments. In this case the CQ is quite useful in understanding the concept of cultural intelligence. From the above argument, it is justified to argue that Ward et al’s argument brings out the view that the CQ is effective and functional in terms of assessing cultural intelligence among the employees. In an attempt to understand if the CQ is different from EQ, from the research of Ward et al, it is evident that there is a great disparity between the two tools. According to Ward et al (pp.89) emotional intelligence has a lot do with the ability of individuals to regulate their emotions and find appropriate means of interaction with other persons in the workplace. This varies with CQ, in that EQ, is more concerned with regulating the emotions of other persons for intellectual growth whilst CQ, scrutinizes which persons have the skills of survival in multicultural environments. For EQ, Ward et al (pp.89) emphasize that, it is more inclined towards instilling emotional growth in individuals in terms of survival in multicultural environments. In my opinion, therefore, the CQ varies a lot with EQ, in terms of the attributes both tools aim at assessing. The EQ relates to the emotional status of the individuals and their probability of adjusting to the intercultural environments, while CQ focuses on the existing abilities in individuals, and how they can deal with difficult situations in the workplace. As a self reporting instrument, CQ is bound to have flaws in terms of its results. For instance, Ward et al (pp.86) in relation to meta-cognitive aspects, CQ only makes general arguments that persons can make decisions regarding cultural aspects in the organization, on motivation; it is justified to make universal judgments on aspects that deal with culture and the workplace. This explains the reasons behind variations in the dealing with cross cultural relations in the workplace, despite the existence of the CQ tool. On a practical point of view, individuals in an organization are more likely to be biased on their own perceptions on what they think and feel regarding a particular subject. This results from their inability to think in context of other individuals, but themselves. From an analysis of both works, it is almost impossible to test cultural intelligence effectively. This is from the fact that there are no definite mechanisms that can determine precisely the presence of certain attributes of varying cultures, and how they can be manipulated to produce results. This also brings out the fact that, universal aspects of CQ cannot be devised and applied for all organizations as cultures are different, a fact that cannot be swerved. Both articles rely on the fact that measuring cultural intelligence would be possible if they assess the innate ability of the individuals to deal with various cultural varying situations they may be subjected to within an organization. This aspect is indeed not valid to have a complete understanding on whether the individuals are culturally intelligent or not. In light to this argument, Triandis’ article is more reliable and valid, as it allows application of a practical viewpoint in the discussion of cultural intelligence. Checking out for characteristics of culturally intelligent persons is more sensible as it is easier to identify such individuals especially after training, unlike the CQ that is prone to unreliable results, whilst carrying out research on culturally intelligent persons. It is advisable that managers go for Triandis’ article, which in my opinion is far much practical than Ward et al’s. These articles are indeed up to date and are of great benefit to managers of cross cultural workplaces. It is no doubt that the authors have taken the necessary initiatives to carry out research to prove facts incorporated in the works. In the case of Ward et al’s work, the work is inclusive of data from research carried out by analysts and researchers, well quoted and summarized while Triandis has done extensive research on the aspect of intelligence and concept of culture. Managers could easily twist this information to their benefit especially regarding the work compiled by Triandis. In the case of the manager of Global Alliances, he or she may find it beneficial to assess the employees’ level of understanding on cultural intelligence abilities. They may also benefit from differentiating which employees are emotionally intelligent and devise the appropriate means of incorporating them in the workplace for the common good of the organization. Works cited Ang, Soon. & Livermore, David. Leading with Cultural Intelligence: The New Secret to Success. New York: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, 2009. Print. Earley, Ang, S. and Tan, Joo-Seng. CQ: developing cultural intelligence at work. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006. Print. Livermore, David. Cultural Intelligence: Improving Your CQ to Engage Our Multicultural World. New York: Baker Academic, 2009. Print. -------------- The Cultural Intelligence Difference: Master the One Skill You Can't Do Without in Today's Global Economy. New York: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, 2011. Print. Lundby, Kyle. Going Global: Practical Applications and Recommendations for HR and OD Professionals in the Global Workplace. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2010. Print. Martin, Joyce. Profiting from multiple intelligences in the workplace. New York: Gower Publishing, Ltd. 2001. Print. Peterson, Brooks. Cultural intelligence: a guide to working with people from other cultures. London: Intercultural Press, 2004. Print. Triandis, Harry. ‘Cultural Intelligence in Organizations’. Group and Organization Management, 31(2006):20-26. Print. Ward, et al. ‘The Convergent, Discriminant, and Incremental Validity of Scores on a Self-Report Measure of Cultural Intelligence’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Volume 69.1(2009):85-105. Print. Read More