Cross Cultural Communication - Case Study Example

Cross Cultural Communication In most multicultural teams, management dilemmas normally arise because the members have different nationalities and cultural orientations. These factors come as a barrier to the effectiveness and productivity of the team. Recognizing the problems and dealing with them is not an easy task. In most instances, they are identified after a significant damage has been done to the team. It is also worth pointing out that there are several interventions that can be used by managers to be able to alter the detrimental effects of such cultural orientations. However, the approaches themselves may result in more glitches rather than bringing solution if not effectively planned and implemented. Chevrier says that managing the multicultural teams should entail determining the underlying causes of the conflicts and problems (142). It should then be followed by intervening in a way that brings the team back to its ideal level of effectiveness and also empower the individual members to deal with the challenges. Facts of the Case Study In this particular case, the Australian CEO is happy that he has a multicultural team. He believes that the American, British and the Taiwanese will be able to work together and benefit the company. However, problems come up due to their different cultural expectations and practices. The Taiwanese, while working with the other members, feels that by merely listening during presentations, he is being polite. This does not go down well with the American who finds his expression of positive impression to be very arrogant. The conflicting perception of the practice brings a conflict between the American and the Taiwanese. The English worker also has a different work ethics from the other two members of the group. According to the British culture, he is expected to work hard to be able to maintain deadlines. In addition to that, he is against the giving of ultimatums and prefers being left to work on his own. The third member of the group, an American, seem to have little faith on the capability of the rest of the team and sees them as armatures in the job. The British employee is not pleased with this and makes a comment that if the assignment is to be completed in time and effectively, they must have faith in each other. An analysis of this case reveals that three major issues are affecting the performance of the team. The first issue is the work ethics of the member. Each participant seem to have his own idea on how the other should be performing with the British indicating that hard work and meeting of deadlines should be the most important consideration for the success of the team. The second issue and fact is the difference in communication cultures among the three. This specifically comes out considering when one looks at the American and the Taiwanese. While the Taiwanese seem to be more of an indirect communicator, the American prefer direct communication. This is the reason why the American finds the Taiwanese’s listening behavior to be arrogant. British speaks his mind indirectly on the brevity being displayed by the American. Areas of Consideration In order to effectively determine and resolve the conflict that was arising in the team, it is important to look at the cultures of the three nationalities, how they communicate and carry out their duties in the office environment. This allows for determining the root cause and thereby providing an avenue through which effective interventions can be generated (Cox and Blake 30). The British, American and Taiwanese cultures need to be analyzed in order to evaluate the areas of divergence when it comes to office work. The British culture is known to front for a sense of equality. However, it still pay a lot of attention to ranking and authority in the places of work. Unlike the flat organizational cultures like that in Australia where seniority is not taken into account, the British accept seniority in their places of work (Dickson, Den Hartog and Mitchelson 740). The communication that take place between the seniors and the other employees is done in an informal manner. However, this should not therefore not be taken as lack of hierarchical differentiation. In instances where they are working as a team, they take instructions from the senior member and these directives come in the form of polite requests. In the British culture, there is a lot of emphasis on fairness and equality. The members of the community applaud individuality but only within the limited context of the group. If a member tries to stand out above the rest or despises others by believing that he more, it will be taken to be boasting. Such behavior is not appreciated in this particular culture. In the case study, this was quite evident when the American viewed the other two as inferiors. The British employee was not pleased with this and it is for this reason that he informed him that the goals of the project will not be achieved if they do not work together. The communication aspects of the British culture is perhaps one of the most misunderstood components of this culture. Most of the statements made by the British worker are misunderstood due to their indirectness. An example is a case where a supervisor worker states “could you please ask John whether he can finish the assignment by Monday”. In other cultures this may not necessary be taken as a command. However, among the English people, it means that John must finish the task by the stated data. When this is taken into account, then the statement that was made by the British in the case study can be understood. He stated that the team will be able to accomplish whatever goals it has only if they take each other seriously. This is an understatement and as per his culture it may mean that the team has already failed in meeting its mandates due to the fact that the American was looking down on the other members of the group. The second culture that should to be considered is the Taiwanese culture. The Taiwanese people seem to be more laid back even in their places of work. In this particular community, following instructions to the latter is more valued than being creative or standing out in the group. Respect and attachment is esteemed at the places of work. It is for this reason that communication takes place by means of well-crafted messages. It takes the form of words and facial expression. Gestures are also used as a show of respect. Brevity is very much despised especially in instances where it compromises the performance of the entire team. In the American culture on the other hand, directness seem to be the order of the day. The Americans value brevity and this at time make their messages to appear rude. This is why they see those who are indirect in their communication to be arrogant. Problem Statement In this particular case study, the problem arise from the multicultural nature of the team as it consist of people with three different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. This team is therefore unable to operate effective to meet their objectives because the participants cannot appreciate each other’s culture and integrate to from a formidable team. Solutions to the Case Problem There are three possible solutions that can be used to tackle the problem that has been stated above to make the team be able to perform its duties effectively. The first strategy is adaptation. According to Kloppenborg and Petrick, there are teams that are able to work around the cultural barriers and challenges they are facing by adapting to the issues (10). It works without changing the composition of the team and the duties of each participants. This will first involve the recognition of the differences which exist among the individuals. In this case, the working ethics of the British, the brevity of the American and the indirectness of the Taiwanese are the three difficulties to be handled. There is no way a team can be able to work together or even communicate effectively if the players are not able to recognize their differences and develop an mutual understanding of such cross cultures (Bannon and Mattock 55). Adaptation as an approach for managing cross cultural differences is effective if the team is willing to acknowledge each other irrespective of their orientations in terms of ethnicity. This allows them to figure out how to live and work with one another. This method of managing such issues has its own advantage and disadvantages. The major strong point of this methodology is that it takes less managerial time compared to other interventions. The person in charge of the group, which in this case is the CEO, is not required to be there throughout for it to work effectively (Richard 21). The second advantage is that it allows the members to learn in the process of implementation. This is because the members of the team will be taking part in solving their own problems and will therefore feel part and parcel of the solution. The experience they get will not only invaluable in their current duties but also in future assignments that will force them to work with people of different ethnicities. According to Thomas, this intervention has two main disadvantages (60). The first one is that it may be hard to implement if the team members are not willing to recognize and act on their differences. The other disadvantage is that it may not be effective when dealing with a large team (Thomas 64). The other approach that can be used is managerial intervention. This is an intervention where the manager acts as the arbitrator and thus makes the final decision without the rest of the team getting involved. This methodology has effectively been used when team members are unable to make a decision on the best way forward or on the best alternative that they have during the course of their assignment. According to Lionel the intervention of the managers in the early life of a particular group working on a given task may be very effective in streamlining the activities of the group thus ensuring effectiveness and efficiency (56). Managerial intervention may also entail the direct involvement of the one who sets up a group to work on a task. In this case study the CEO may directly intervene to help the group. In doing this, he will be required to directly inform the members that they were selected since they are all viewed to be equal and capable of delivering. Moreover, he may have to tell them to acknowledge their different orientations upfront so that more problems are not experienced. Just like the first solution, the managerial intervention also has advantages and disadvantages. The first advantage is that if used in the initial life of the group, it minimizes the number of barriers encountered (Bannon and Mattock 66). The second strength is that it encourages the team to acknowledge that they are not the same but must work together if they have to deliver. The drawback of this approach is that it requires the involvement of the manager thus taking more managerial time. Moreover, it denies the employees the chance to of learn on their own as they solve their problems. Consequently, they will not be able to deal with similar situations in the near future. Best Intervention and its Implementation For this particular case study, the adaptation approach will be the best way to go. This is due to the fact that it will allow the parties to take part in sorting their problems. The implementation of this method will entail encouraging the three workers to recognize and understand their differences. This will then be followed by the determination of a compromise working relationship code that will take care of their cultures. When this is done, they will be able to adapt to the expectations and behaviors of the other members while at the same time striving hard to avoid practices that may appear offensive and acceptable to the other party. Works Cited Bannon, Gerard and Mattock, John. Cross-cultural Communication: The Essential Guide to International Business. Sterling: Kogan Page Publishers, 2006.Print. Chevrier, Sylvie. “Cross-Cultural Management in Multinational Project Groups.” Journal of World Business 38.4 (2008): 141-150. Print. Cox, Timothy and Blake, Edwards. “Managing Cultural Diversity: Implications for Organizational Competitiveness.” Academy of Management Executive 5. 3 (2011):24-30. Print. Dickson, Marcus, Den Hartog, Deanne and Mitchelson, Jacqueline. “Research on Leadership in a Cross-Cultural Context: Making Progress, and Raising New Questions.” The Leadership Quarterly 14(2003): 729–768.Print. Kloppenborg Timothy and Petrick Adams., "Leadership in Project Life Cycle and Team Character Development", Project Management Journal, 30. 2(2009): 8-13.Print. Lionel, Laroche. Managing Cultural Diversity in Technical Professions. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print. Richard, Lewis. Cross Cultural Communication: A Visual Approach. London: Transcreen Publications, 2009.Print. Thomas, Warren. Cross-cultural Communication: Perspectives in Theory and Practice. Michigan: Baywood Publishers, 2006.Print. Read More