The Adaptation and Integration of Socio-Cultural Identity - Assignment Example

Trans-cultural is a bridging process that critically involves negotiation of learning outcomes, and the adaptation and integration of socio-cultural identity. Strategies 1. Build teams’ confidence in their exposure to and use of the additional language-use of additional language within the socio- cultural context. 2. Build on previous experience- if the team member shave the history of performing efficiently it is important to develop and maintain positive feeling. 3. Consciously initiate a process of learning to learn in an additional language, which brings with it the potential for change(s) in basic orientations to learning and teaching 4. Attempt to transform additional language classes into the team – it is important to develop and maintain a positive whole- group feeling among team members. 5. Concentrate teams’ communication and extended out-of-team activities on wider issues than those of technique or procedure 6. Take a wider view in the selection of materials and activities, and ensure that the content of the lessons are negotiable 7. Invite team members to have more direct input into the design and actual implementation of the project development 8. Promote and assess critical thinking and language awareness – apply to all aspects of communication whether receptive or productive. 9. Discuss personal backgrounds, work history, current time constraints, strengths and weaknesses of working in a group, how you work best. STRATEGY APPLICATION Uses of the language, and personal application of language use Members are made aware of knowledge acquisition of communication strategies on two levels: (1) Macro-level where study focuses on the ability to give, for example, a vivid description, or tell an engaging story: (2) Micro-level where team members are taught how to initiate communication, how to elaborate on ideas and how to show interest as a listener. Team members are also made aware of the importance of exercising their personal expression. Practical example of a card game Team members are divided into two groups. No verbal communication to be allowed between members. Each table rested a pack of cards and a list of game rules Once rules are read were removed and the members asked to play for five minutes, after which the team player who won the most hands to leave the team and proceed in a clockwise direction to the neighbouring table where the game would begin again. However, being unknown to the members, each table to designated a different set of rules. These differences only came to light when a hand is claimed incorrectly. The confusion generated is compounded by the fact that no verbal communication is allowed. After becoming aware that the differences in value exist could the participants make these explicit thus ensuring that the group functioned with common understanding. After half an hour of play plus five rotations the facilitator outlines several lessons to be learnt from the exercise 1. A culture can be particular to one group 2. Culture influences the behaviour of a team 3. Cultures can hold different systems of value 4. Cultures are learnt and are not hereditary, they are simply passed from one generation to the next Key issues raised in differing design: 1. Be conscious of different cultures that exist even if they are not recognised openly 2. Communication between team members of a particular group is essential 3. General understanding must be attained at the outset of a project 4. A benchmark set of rules (a structure) may help minimize misunderstandings during the joint venture 5. Look forward to conflict to arise but make sure that it leads to constructive actions and enhanced understanding. It can be concluded that a regular understanding of cultural values ought to be achieved within the team to ensure efficient and incident free working. Effectiveness of Trans-cultural practices Allows individuals to become alert of the abilities and needs of the group in terms culture and personality. By communicating, team members can: Exchange knowledge/experience Recognise general/common instincts Concur on immediate plans/aims Negotiate strategies aimed at achieving set plans Implement and supervise/manage these strategies Insight to a variety of cultures’ approaches to moments in time, information, development, decision making, relations, authority, and change. Increase your suppleness in dealing transversely with cultural differences. Solve problems using intercultural strategies Know cultural values from 4 groups represented at your company. Prevent occurrences of miscommunication and subsequently have new instruments to resolve them as they happen. Gain greater understanding of team composition effects, with a focus on culture, Develop skills in diagnosing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that face teams, Gain teamwork expertise by working in teams and analyzing their own experience in those teams. Negative Effects: · The misunderstanding of an action can outcome in the raising of barriers that will slow down effective teamwork. · It is very hard to rebuild trust between individuals. · Not having the trust can lead to lose-lose situation during concerted working. Question 3 NEGLIGENCE In order to establish whether there has been negligence there are five elements that need to be satisfied. In possibly its most conservative current iteration, “negligence” is devised in terms of sense of duty, violation, grounds, and harm. Firstly there has to exist a duty of care. At then bottom, the negligence law evaluates human choices to fit into place in harmful demeanor as either proper or improper. An “act” is said to be “negligent” if it infringes a preexisting requirement to steer clear of and repair carelessly inflicted harms to others, duty gives definitional coherence to the negligence inquiry. Serving in this mode as the initial element of a carelessness claim, responsibility provides the frontage door to recuperation for the chief cause of act in the “law of torts”: Every carelessness claim ought to pass through the “duty portal” that leaps the span of tort recovery for inadvertent harm. In this case there existed a duty on the part of the manufacturer to ensure that the tools used are safe for use. The manufacturer has a duty of care and so in that respect the plaintiff qualifies to sue. Secondly there has to be a breach of that duty. Having established that there existed a duty, the second ingredient is to establish whether there has been a breach of that duty. In the definition of the utmost extent to which the public are to be seized accountable for their damaging transgressions in differing circumstances, duty equilibriums the interests of convinced classes of possible victims in safety from certain kinds of damage, on one hand, alongside the welfare of certain groups of actors in liberty of accomplishment, on the other. This equilibrium of interests manages the degree to which courtyards close the entrance on groups of problems at the rim of tort law or, in its place, pass such “border problems” in the course of to juries for willpower. How strongly obligation rules are enclosed controls the amount to which “negligence” lawsuits of an assortment of types are permitted for full arbitration or are as a substitute summarily evicted from the judicial scheme. By allowing a student who was an intern to deal with the machinery without the appropriate supervision, the company acted in breach of that duty. In addition to that the machinery was not tested before being used according to the required procedure. This is clearly negligence on the part of the company. The workers in this case can therefore sue for damages resulting from the negligence of the company. The company on its part can sue the graduate supervisor for professional negligence. This is because he owed the company a duty to ensure that the equipment was properly designed. The company can also use this as a defence against it since the supervisor did not follow the procedure that was stipulated by the company. He therefore acted on his own volition and did not do what was required of him in the ordinary cause of business. Another element of negligence is that the negligence should lead to harm for the plaintiff to be entitled to any remedy. In this case, the injury of the workers resulted directly in the harm of the workers. Causation in this case will therefore suffice. Actual harm or injury is the other element that needs to be present to succeed in a claim for negligence. The injury to the workers is the harm in this case thus in this case the plaintiff in this case he plaintiff has a valid claim if he sues for negligence in this case the negligence was occasioned by the graduate supervisor who gave the equipment a cursory check before it was manufactured. Although the negligence arose from an individual the whole company is vicariously liable. In conclusion the workers in this case are entitled to sue for negligence. They have satisfied all the ingredients for negligence and can thus sue for damages. The company on the other hand has the defence of blaming the negligence on the graduate supervisor since he acted contrary to the company’s Laid down procedure. The supervisor can then be held liable for professional negligence. References Austin S, et al., (1999). 'Using training workshops to map interdisciplinary team working'. In ‘events of the Chartered Instituteof Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) National Conference 1999’. Harrogate, UK. Barnard G (1995). ‘ Cross-cultural communication – A practical guide’. Cassell, London, UK. Granrose, C. and Oskam, S. (1997) ‘ Cross- cultural workgroups: An Overview’ Claremont Sage Publications. Hayes, J. and Allinson, C. (1995). ‘Cultural differences in the learning styles of managers’. In Jackson T (ed.). ‘Cross cultural management’. Butterworth- Heinemann Ltd. Oxford, UK. Harris PR, Moran RT (1987). ‘Managing cultural differences’. Second Edition. Houston: Gulf, 1987. Kroeber, A. and Kluckhohn, C. (1952). ‘A critical review of concepts and definitions’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Limaye M. and Victor, D. (1995). ‘Cross-cultural business communication research: State of the art and hypotheses for the 1990’s’. In Jackson T (ed.). ‘Cross cultural management’. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Oxford, UK. Maznevski, M. and Destefano, J. (1995). ‘Measuring culture in international management’. The cultural perspectives questionnaire (Working paper 95-39). London, Canada: University of Co. USA. Smith DB, Peterson MF (1995). ‘Beyond value comparisons: Sources used to put meaning to work events in 25 countries’. Steele, J, et al. (1999). ‘Interdisciplinary interaction during concept design’.In ‘Proceedings of the 15thth annual conference of the Association of Researchers in Construction (ARCOM’99). Liverpool, UK. Read More