Challenge of Cultural Diversity - Research Paper Example

? An Actual Illustration of the Challenge of Cultural Diversity and Information Sharing Practices to Organizational Values of Professor Date of Submission Introduction The main argument of this paper is that disparities in value orientation and information sharing are the major root of conflict in organizational culture. This paper examines the argument by exploring the organizational value and culture of an American university based in the UK; this organization is burdened with internal problems, particularly with regard to its faculty which is composed of Americans, British, and Irish employees and students. Perhaps, the conflict weakened the foundation of the university’s mission and vision. A large number of people in the university, such as senior administrators, discovered that severe problems continue unresolved. Demands to the administration led to the formation of a committee tasked to identify the issues that the university’s important constituents had. What followed is a comprehensive assessment of senior administrators. The general findings showed that most British and Irish students and employees had little or even no knowledge of the decisions and actions of the administrators due to poor information sharing. In contrast, the American employees stated they were aware of what should be performed and how it should be realized. In order to concretely ascertain the dissatisfaction with the process of information sharing in the university, I conducted small interviews with some of the administrators, faculty staff, and students. Some of the students and employees believed that the administration could work by itself and should be doubted to work for their best interests. Only the administrative personnel expressed high satisfaction with the process and outcome of information sharing in the university. The responses of the students express a considerable degree of ‘uninformed’ stances. A usual answer from the employees and students concerning senior administrators’ information sharing strategies is wholly illustrated in this response, “The difficulty is that many of us are uninformed of the duties, decisions, and actions of these people. The only things that I know come from rumors or word of mouth and I know that these are not reliable sources of information.” The opinion of the faculty staff on the poor system of information sharing is expressed in the statement, “Honestly, I am not informed of the steps that are being taken to build the assets of the university. Our administrators do not show genuine commitment to the people at the university, especially with regard to sharing of information and values. Apparently, the dissatisfaction among the employees and students at the university is rooted in the lack of information, but with the Irish people this lack of information is a defense mechanism against accountability. The Americans and British demand information for the purpose of learning. The Irish are more contented with the lack of information for the purpose of blaming. This is a major issue for the university. The responses of the faculty staff, mainly British and American, express discontentment with the administration of Americans and British, whereas the most positive opinions of top administrators originate from the Irish employees. This phenomenon is conceivably brought about by differences in cultures and values within the organization. The Effect of Cultural Diversity and Poor Information Sharing Practices on the University’s Organizational Values The Irish groups demonstrate greater power distance over the British and American personnel. The latter groups demand that they have the right to question or challenge those in authority. My interview reveals that a number of American and British faculty members believe that it is their duty to oppose those in the top echelons. This opposition occurs in person, in the form of debate. On the other hand, Irish personnel dislike opposing those in power. The more relevant the concern is to them, the less they are eager to openly challenge it. Instead, a mediator is employed who could expertly intervene. For instance, during the phase of problematic deliberations about salary increase, a group of employees went to me asking for an intervention. When I told them to negotiate the issue personally with the administrator, they decisively refused. Several other Irish employees expressed the same dilemma. The students were informed that disagreement inside the classroom is not bad. This is hard for them to understand because customary Irish education prohibits even raising positive questions of professors and instructors. The Irish population accepts the privacy of dispute settlement and decision making. British and American employees present their disagreements directly to the administration. Professional employees prefer that if an authority figure decides in a domineering manner, students will acknowledge these dictatorial judgments of professors. The British and American personnel, on the other hand, oppose dictatorial process of decision making. During my interview with Irish students and employees, two general preferences emerged: (1) conformity, and (2) adverse sentiments toward authority. I assume that Irish employees and students familiarize themselves to an inflexible present they understand as being governed by past occurrences. They are inclined to inhabit the present and believe that the future will work naturally (Hult, 2003). These employees try to make things better by trying to avoid repeating past errors, exercise the past to influence the future. Their values teach them to learn the past, envision other future results, and afterwards try to generate a different kind of futures. On the contrary, students place more importance on their present problems and needs than on an unknowable and remote future. Similarly, the American and British populations tend to focus more on their immediate needs and conditions than on the future (Hult, 2003). Nonetheless, my observations showed less difference, specifically when it comes to tasks. The three groups do not understand a variety of tasks assigned to each other. In other words their job descriptions are regarded ‘private’, which consequently prevents accurate understanding. Administrators, in a strategic way, exercise firmly the policy of ‘need to know’. When the administration of the university tried to establish an agreement with a local university, a large part of the university population was unaware of the important details. When an agreement was established, the people of the American university were uninformed of the expected outcomes. People who have more direct relations with a person and/or receiving a particular service are inclined to be discontented. The information I gathered show that people who have more direct interaction with a person or in higher requirement of services were highly critical, whereas people further detached from a person or requiring less of the service were either ‘unaware’ or contented. For instance, faculty members, personnel, and students were at odds on the collection, management, and use of information about food provision within the university. Faculty members demand accurate information about the best way to offer a selection of and an efficient provision of food. The other groups desired an alternative to the traditional way of providing food in schools, that is, via service lines. Their assumption was that more food is squandered under this procedure. A portion of the university population desires clear and complete dissemination of information about the findings of the research and development (R&D) department. This reveals a prevalent discontentment of the information given to the constituencies of university. The evident absence of a broad transparency of functions and duties of the employees resulted in assumption as to what they must be. This assumption resulted in unfounded knowledge and understanding of each culture as to what their functions and the roles of others were. Conclusions The administrators’ failure to address the diversity of cultures and values in the university generated doubts and conflicts among the university’s populations. The outcome is clearly weak information sharing practices and miserable working environment. The Irish populations operating within the framework of risk aversion and control are overwhelming their American and British associates but coming to blows with the university’s faculty members. In addition, there are large-scale conflicts emerging between the administrators of the American university and other local universities. The Americans and British operated within the models of working in ways that cultivated an eagerness to bear vagueness or poor information sharing practices—the decisions made and steps taken by the administration were perceived through diverse cultural lens: the Americans and British through confidence over outcomes and the Irish through doubt over outcomes. The administration ignored the importance of a clearly defined information sharing pathway and instead carried out their duties within their own cultural frameworks which led to serious conflicts. The Americans and British view Irish administrators as untrustworthy and the Irish view American and British administrators as ignorant and hence unreliable. Because of the university’s failure to strengthen its diverse organizational values and weakening information sharing system, it continually loses its good reputation and brand equity. Moreover, it confounds its central vision and mission and starts to take the responsibility of generating job opportunities instead of value and competency enhancements that will build a strong environment for the whole organization. References Hult, C. (2003). “Organizational Commitments and Conflicting Values: The Impact of Systems of Norms in Six Western Countries,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 44(5), 408+ Lankau, M., Ward, A., Amason, A., Ng, T., Sonnenfeld, J. & Agle, J. (2007). “Examining the Impact of Organizational Value Dissimilarity in Top Management Teams,” Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(1), 11+ Mitchell, K.D. (2002). “Collaborating and Information Sharing: An ROI Perspective?” The Public Manager, 31(1), 59+ West, R. & Turner, L.H. (2009). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Read More