 In
Reflection – Applying Cross-Cultural Competency to
Everyday Communications
Dear
Friends and Colleagues,
Where I usually take every other month to
write a new article, and the “leap month” to reflect and
respond to questions and comments from readers, I
deviated from my normal path and used the last three
consecutive months to make my case, if you will, about
Applying Cross-Cultural Competency to Everyday
Communications. For new subscribers, you may want to go
to read the last three archived issues of this
newsletter for those practices and qualities I consider
most essential in enhancing communications and creating
inclusiveness in our homes, our workplaces, and the many
corners of communities where we play a part.
It was a great pleasure for me to revisit
the world of cross-cultural communications which
originally drew me to my work with refugees in the early
80’s, and to re-examine and restate my position in light
of what I have learned over the past two and a half
decades since those studies began. I am also excited to
say that I have developed both a keynote and a one-day
workshop based on the material of the last three
newsletters entitled “Creating Inclusiveness – Being
True to the Dream of Diversity”. So I thank you, dear
readers, for providing me the inspiration and motivation
to return to my roots, only to find there the sprouting
of something new and green and growing!
Let me wrap up the theme of
“Cross-Cultural Competency” in this issue by responding
to a few thought-provoking questions and comments I have
received from readers over the past three months.
Take command of the thinking commanding
you!
Here is a comment from a subscriber of
this newsletter who was a participant at a workshop this
past month. I am responding to his remark for the
benefit of others who may have taken issue with the some
of the more controversial suggestions I made in the
November issue.
“While I am usually in
agreement with the thoughts and ideas you put forth, I
found that your suggestions for “applying cross-cultural
competency” assumed the worst about people’s beliefs and
thinking. Why would you otherwise suggest that we
“enter the door marked “Prejudiced”, “question our
certainty”, or “put aside what we think we know”, etc.?
I suppose if you were addressing the typical audience,
this would be warranted, but you are writing to people
in an industry that is working to advance diversity in
the community – people who know these issues from the
inside out.”
While I don’t mean to offend, I do not
wish to temper the suggestions I made in any way. The
truth, in fact, is that I think I may have soft-shoed
the seriousness of the faulty, unreasonable, and
self-centered thinking that continually assaults us
all. I am happy to take this opportunity to more fully
express how vital it is that we take a vigilant stance
in controlling the thinking that ordinarily controls us!
I’ll cut to the chase. In its ordinary,
automatic mode, I believe that the human mind is far
more apt to think in a manner that is narrow-minded,
one-sided, simplistic, superficial, ethnocentric, and
egocentric than it is to think in a manner which is
reasonable, open-minded, flexible, tolerant, and
unbiased. I would also contend that the human mind,
left to its own devices, is far more rigid than it is
malleable, and far more interested in sticking to its
foregone conclusions than entertaining alternative views
that are not consistent with what it already believes!
I believe that the human mind, left unattended, is
naturally self-justifying, self-serving, and
self-deceptive.
I would assert that our inherently biased
thoughts and thought processes appear to our own minds
as dispassionate, unprejudiced, and impartial. We
simply do not readily see ourselves as wrong. Rather,
we see ourselves as right, doing what is most reasonable
in the situation. (Thus, for example, the female
supervisor who, after interviewing both make and female
applicants, always (as in, only) hires women, or the CEO
who has never promoted an employee with a disability,
but both of whom consider themselves unbiased and
objective and could probably give many reasons to
support their decisions – facts, for example, about the
applicant or employee’s work experiences, skills, and so
forth.) The human mind is brilliant at making us feel
good about ourselves, or at the very least, not bring
our choices into question. I believe all of this to be
true regardless of a person’s age, profession, political
or religious affiliation, cultural upbringing, or
indeed, astrological sign.
I liken “diversity thinking” to “good
driving”. Most people think that the world is full of
bad drivers, but few would ever claim to be poor drivers
themselves. In the same way, most of us would agree
that human beings naturally have prejudices, act in ways
that are self-serving, and engage in chronic
self-deception. It’s just that none of us happen to
fall into that category! I contend that it will be
impossible to create homes, workplaces or communities
that are truly inclusive and tolerant as long as
everyone continues to see themselves as the exception to
the rule.
The good news is that the mind does not
need to be left to its own self-serving devices. We all
fall prey to human egocentricity. So what? We also have
the ability to stand aside and consider another
viewpoint. We naturally think we are right. So what?
That doesn’t have to preclude thoughtful consideration
that we might be wrong! Practicing cross-cultural
competency requires us to bring what is unconscious in
our thinking to the level of our consciousness. It is
in that spirit that I wholeheartedly stand behind the
suggestions I made in the November, 2006 issue of this
newsletter.
Drop the labels, please!
“Denise,
I loved your discussion about the power of language and
the importance of the words we use. I have read “Beyond
Traditional job Development” and the part I found
especially useful was the section on the use of language
when talking to employers about my applicants. Why
didn’t you include that as part of your discussion in
your newsletter?”
Because
the readership of this newsletter is so diverse, I
attempt to give examples that anyone can relate to,
whether or not they are in the field of Employment and
Training. At this request, however, I will offer a
condensed version of what this reader is referring to.
Consider the difference in how you might perceive the
following people given the difference in the words I
use:
Rather
than say: “I am working with high school drop-outs
and at risk youth.” You might say:
“Many of the students I am working with
are continuing their education while facing a variety of
difficult life situations. It is my job to help them
identify their challenges and find solutions before they
ever walk through your door.”
Rather
than say: “I am working with an ex-offender who wants
to be a carpenter.” You might say:
“I am working with a young carpenter
named Joe. Joe has made a lot of mistakes in his life
and paid the price for his mistakes. Fortunately, he
took a woodshop course while in prison and discovered he
has a real gift. He is anxious to put his newly-honed
skills to work in the world!”
Rather
than say: “I work with people with disabilities,
which is to say I work with a little of everyone – folks
with CP, MS, wheelchair-users, deaf, blind, mental
illness – you name it!” You might say:
“I work with people with disabilities, which is to say,
I work with a little of everyone – I have computer
technicians, customer service folks, people interested
in retail, health care, landscaping – you name it!”
Rather
than say: “I am representing welfare recipients,
homeless people and other multi-barriered individuals.”
You might say: “I represent a
wide range of people with a variety of skills and
interests! Some individuals may be in need in public
assistance or temporary housing, at least until that
second or third paycheck!”
Among
the differences in the two ways of speaking is that in
the first remark I am using labels (nouns), defining
people by their circumstance. In the second remark I am
using verbs, reflecting that individuals are more than
their circumstance and need not be defined them. I am
also referring to people by the name of the job they are
applying for, allowing the employer to envision them in
the role and context of an employee! As language is the
only currency we have, we must wield it and invest it
with utmost care!
The Language of Us and Them
"Dear Denise, thank you
for reminding us to be less judgmental as we interact
with people who need our assistance, but also our
respect! I believe that your suggestions will help us
be more respectful to one another as professionals as
well!”
This
reader’s comment reminded me of the “Language of Us and
Them” – a classic word-play from the field of
cross-cultural communications which I share below. As
you read through it, consider the snap judgments we tend
to make about other people, which if we stopped and gave
them the benefit of the doubt, might help us recast our
perceptions. For example, what is the difference
between someone who appears and “unfriendly” and someone
you would characterize as “reserved? How about
“assertive” and “obnoxious”, “resolute” and
“uncooperative”, or “confident” and “arrogant”?
THE LANGUAGE OF US AND THEM
We like things….They fixate on objects
We try to make friends…They display attention-seeking
behaviors
We take a break…They display off-task behavior
We stand up for ourselves…They are
non-compliant
We have hobbies…They self stimulate
We choose our friends wisely…They display poor peer
socialization
We persevere…They perseverate
We love people…They have dependencies on people
We go for a walk…They run away
We insist…They tantrum
We change our mind…They are disoriented and they have
short attention spans
- Source
unknown
In interpersonal conflict, look for the
difference in values
“Dear Denise, The recent
issues of your newsletter have really changed my
thinking about diversity and I am beginning to view
every interaction as “cross-cultural”. Thank you for
that! Here is my question: I work in a workplace rife
with interpersonal conflict among staff members. Even
though we are all working to create inclusiveness in the
community, we are not doing so well within our own
agency! In your experience, what area of “diversity
training” would you start with to bring true
inclusiveness to a workplace?”
Thank
you for the question, although you find my response less
than satisfying. You see, I am not sure that “training”
is necessarily the solution to your problem. Unless, of
course, you can happen upon a kind of “training magic”
that radically opens the hearts and shifts the minds of
your staff in a way that is both meaningful and
enduring. (By the way, if you find it, let us know so
we can share it with other readers!)
I fear
that your challenge is deeper than what any workshop can
adequately attend to or address. Don’t get me wrong-
as a trainer I do believe that important things can take
place as the result of a workshop or seminar. However,
I believe that the change you are seeking to create in
your workplace will come about only as result of a
disciplined commitment on behalf of the entire staff to
employ the kind of practices I wrote about in the
last three issues. Things like deep listening,
cultivating humility, copping to our own brand of
prejudice, swapping certainty for doubt, recognizing the
complexities of language and communication. These
practices are anything but easy, and as I discussed
above, do not come natural to anyone – thus the need for
both discipline and commitment!
Your
question, however, prompts me to shed light on an
additional factor not mentioned in my previous issues,
and that is the question of “values”. Clearly our
perceptions and communications are always value-based as
we are forever driven by what we want, what we need and
what we care about. Perhaps the most likely source of
interpersonal conflicts lies not in a difference in
communication, but a difference in values. One of my
favorite writer’s, Peter Vaill, once suggested, “When we
can’t understand another person’s behavior, it is often
because we don’t understand what that person thinks the
goal is.”
In his
wonderful book, “Managing as a Performance Art”, Vaill
employs a terrific example of a coach’s challenge of
getting all the players to define “winning” in the same
way. A former coach reported that his players all held
different ways of viewing success and it made his job
much harder. The players’ definitions included:
-
Playing even if you’re hurt
-
Never getting hurt or never playing hurt
-
Starting fast and hanging on
-
Taking it easy in the game and going all out at the
end
-
Focus on winning this one game
-
Focus on the series of games
-
Focus on the whole season
-
Focus on beating certain opponents
-
Regarding all opponents equally
-
Viewing some opponents as much more important than
others and winning against one of the others isn’t
really “winning”.
Vaill
goes on to reinforce that if the definition of winning
can slide around in the minds of the members of a sports
team, this is nothing compared to the diversity of
thinking one can find in a typical work environment.
Differences can exist regarding the goals and values of
departments, offices within departments, and among
members of any team within an office. So questions
about things like the importance of quality over
quantity, the long term versus the short term, the needs
of line staff versus admin, meeting numbers or profits
versus service to the customer, etc. – all of these are
issues creating prime points of conflict depending on
the values of the individuals involved!
Surely,
the workplace is not just values-driven, but
values-muddled and values-anguished due to
the fact that every individual with them their own brand
or version of the company/agency values. As a place to
start, it might be a good idea to find ways to allow
staff to express the goals and values driving their
thoughts and behavior. My bet is that it is in that
arena that they will see their differences in a new
light, but also find some powerful common ground!
~ Denise
© Denise
Bissonnette, February 2007 (If not used for commercial
purposes, this article may be reproduced, all or in
part, providing it is credited to "Denise Bissonnette,
Diversity World - www.diversityworld.com." If included
in a newsletter or other publication, we would
appreciate receiving a copy.)
Read Denise's November 2006 newsletter...
|
