"Weaving strength from differences"

     Selected Articles from Past Issues of "Nipporica Notes," as well as other news items

Intercultural Skill Development:

Articles on "Redundancia," our foreign language simulation.

Ecotonos Integrated Into Royal Canadian Mounted Police Cadet Training Program

Pre-Departure Orientation or Skill- and Teambuilding?

Experiential learning/teaching of effective intercultural communication.

How to Select a Vendor in the intercultural field (an intercultural consultant or trainer).

Organizational Change:

May the Process Be with You: Utilizing Differences to Recreate an Organization

Walking the Tightrope as Change Agents

Adapting US Corporate Programs for Use in Asia:

Keys to Successful Intercultural Training in Japan

An article outlining strategies and concrete steps for adapting western programs for use in Asia, based on Nipporica's 20+ years of experience on this topic, entitled "Adapting Corporate Courses for Use in Asia."

Intercultural & Geographically Dispersed Teams:

Intercultural Teams – Reality From Inside

An article summarizing our eight-month research project, from the International Journal of Intercultural Research, entitled "Productive Behaviors of Global Business Teams."

Developing a multicultural team.

Diversity Miscellaneous:

You Are More Intelligent Than You Think

Diversity In Corporate America

Languages on the Internet

Global Business Miscellaneous:

Some interesting stats and studies from around the world.

18 of the top 20 largest organizations in Asia in 1999, based on sales, are Japanese.

Wondering how many women are on the Boards of their corporations worldwide? Click here for a 5-country comparison.

The Cultural Informer (vignettes of intercultural communication in the US Midwest):

February 2002 issue.

April 2002 issue.

July 2002 issue.

Ecotonos Integrated Into Royal Canadian Mounted Police Cadet Training Program

Dr. Frum Himelfarb & Sergeant Mike Gaudet, RCMP Training Directorate

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has found Ecotonos to be an effective tool in sensitizing cadets in its basic training program to the potential benefits and challenges of problem solving in diverse groups. In addition, Ecotonos provides cadets with the skills needed to address any challenges in arriving at quality solutions and effective police service.

Cadets in the RCMP are representative of the diverse groups in Canada. While in training, they learn team building, conflict resolution, negotiation, and mediation techniques. These skills are essential to the many team problem-solving sessions they participate in as part of their training. These techniques are also essential to productive problem-solving initiatives on policing-related issues in the communities they will serve.

The RCMP made substantial changes to its basic training program in 1995. The program, now called the RCMP Cadet Training Program, was designed to be consistent with the RCMP mission:

Community policing is a partnership between the police and the community, sharing in the delivery of police services. With this valuable community cooperation, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pledges to:

  • uphold the principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
  • provide a professional standard of service;
  • ensure all policing services are provided courteously and impartially;
  • work with the community and other agencies to prevent or resolve problems that affect the community's safety and quality of life;
  • act with the Canadian justice system to address community problems; and
  • promote a creative and responsive environment to allow all RCMP members to deliver community policing services.

The approach used in the Training Program is guided by the principles of community policing and adult learning. It emphasizes the philosophy and principles of community policing; problem-solving approaches; service and client orientation; development and maintenance of partnerships and alliances in the context of diversity; and continuous learning and improvement.

To that end, various training methodologies are used in the Cadet Training Program, including scenario-based training (problem-solving exercises), role plays, lectures, panel discussions, research, presentations, and community interaction. The training scenarios address answering calls for assistance from individuals and communities; calls to incidents in progress; investigations of incidents after a crime has been committed; appropriate interactions with suspects and prisoners; and expected performance when giving testimony in court. In each case, expectations and demands of the diverse clients served are explored with a view to providing client-centered service. Throughout this process, cadets learn approaches and techniques for providing effective protection, prevention, enforcement, and service.

The Cadet Training Program uses a variety of training aids, such as Ecotonos, to demonstrate that diversity issues are integral to effective policing. The emphasis in the Ecotonos exercise is on making decisions based on listening to and respecting diverse views. Cadets are cautioned that productive problem solving requires a focus on arriving at acceptable and workable solutions to problems, not accommodating diverse views for the sake of achieving consensus. The exercise is followed by a session in which cadets attend town hall and consultative group meetings to analyze, on the basis of criteria provided, how effective the sessions were and how they might have been improved. Cadets then participate in a role play of a community consultative group meeting, where they practice techniques learned in diverse group problem solving. Later, cadets form a consultative group with appropriate experts from the community; together, they problem solve a bias-motivated crime situation.

May the Process Be With You: Utilizing Differences to Re-Create an Organization

Ken Brown, Engineering Manager, Digital Semiconductor, a business unit of

Digital Equipment Corporation

Contributors: Joe Dury, Group Engineering Manager, and

Bill LaPrade, Group Engineering Manager

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Start with three engineering, manufacturing, and R&D groups, each reporting to three different vice presidents in a single company business segment, with responsibilities that simultaneously overlap, complement, and conflict. Tell them they have a fixed period of time to go into a room and decide how to "reorganize," so that the total function will work more smoothly and so that people will be able to concentrate on the work, not the politics. Tell them to overcome their fear of downsizing. Tell them to choose new leadership.

What would you expect as an outcome? Some quick backroom maneuvers to see which VP had more clout? A wager to see who would jockey for position first? A decibel violation given by the EPA, forcing the group to work in a soundproof room? Pistols at dawn?

Actually, none of these power plays happened. The result was a "single" engineering and manufacturing organization reporting to a single vice president. The completely redefined work flow optimized the total group to eliminate overlap and conflict. It utilized 98 percent of the existing resources (and reallocated the 2 percent elsewhere within the larger organization) and focused additional attention and resources in previously weak areas. Members of the group actually listened to and learned from each other - we who had a long history of working at cross-purposes were able to understand one another's values and contributions, analyze our business objectively, and make team decisions to improve our work effectiveness.

Could such an outcome really be possible from such inherently competitive groups? The answer was yes - once we had consensus that all sides wanted it to work. We learned that we need each other to get the job done right. Additionally, it took a well-defined set of processes and tools to help us get the work done. Nipporica Associates helped bring such an approach to the Semiconductor Organization at Digital Equipment Corporation.

Every group is different; this difference ensures that every group working together can use these same tools. Many of these tools focus on the concept of our differences, on how to understand each other given our differences and utilize those differences for the good of the overall organization. We went beyond just valuing diversity to actually using it. As we worked on some basic tenets of understanding and positive communication, we simultaneously did the reengineering work. The tools we used included developing a comprehensive work flow for the total organization (as well as linkages with other organizations), designing and using decision-making processes that we could all agree on and use, and creating a shared mental model of our work. Our process included drawing; sticky notes; charts; functional and cross-functional discussions; highly structured verbal and analytical exercises; meetings facilitated by consultants, in-house OD and HR staff, one of our members, or by our whole team; and plans and slides for communicating our work to the larger organization. We learned to discuss topics thoroughly and from all angles, to maintain buy-in at each stage of the process, and to make objectives explicit before coming to a decision.

We make decisions all the time, and we see others doing so. But how often do we ask ourselves, "Why did she make that decision?" or worse yet, "I can't believe he made THAT decision!"

If these kinds of reactions are commonplace, how can people possibly make decisions together that affect the entire team? On what basis should decisions be made? Does coming to a difficult decision mean that someone compromises or gives in, and someone else "wins"?

Nipporica Associates introduced us to a process through which we could make collective decisions, optimizing the positive outcome while minimizing the negative consequences. Nobody won or lost: There was no penalty to pay in the future (typically assessed by the losers against the winners), and everyone was invested in the outcome. Simple once we had it, but when we failed to use the proper tools, it was like trying to build a house without any measuring equipment. Everyone ended up arguing about whether something was level, too short, or too long. Key to our effective decision making was spending sufficient time diverging: exploring differing opinions, viewpoints, history, and options, before attempting to come together. If we failed to diverge, we found it impossible to converge. Really exploring our differences first made the convergence that much easier.

Developing a work flow, for example, was contentious. We started it early in the reengineering process while still focused on staking out territory. As we used our emerging communication and collaboration tools, the work flow took on an entirely different meaning. At some point, almost without realizing it, we stopped worrying about ownership and started thinking about the work, independent of who had what responsibility. This occurred after we realized we could optimize the flow, while still being innovative, and use it to help us define our new organizational structure. We realized we didn't have to compete with one another.

Once our reengineering plan was complete, we moved to the implementation phase. This was challenging in a different way. The first phase was choosing management and staff for new positions. Key to successful implementation were the tools and processes we developed and learned along the way. Without faithful use of the communication and decision-making guidelines we had developed for our group, we fell back into old behaviors. No matter how carefully we'd plan, we couldn't anticipate everything. We needed the right tools to build the house and maintain it after it was built! Thanks to a highly committed group and some expert assistance, our house is shaping up nicely!

The Re-Engineering Roller Coaster

[Image]

Case Study: Utilizing Differences to Re-Create an Organization

Now that we were a newly reorganized entity, we faced operational and strategic issues that had to be resolved. In our favor was the fact that we had developed new skills for using our differences to find the best solutions. We applied these skills to the following process.

1. Defining the problem. The first step was for key staff members to come to agreement on the priority of our open/key issues. Until we fully understood the issues, we couldn't successfully solve them. This step might have been overlooked in the past, with a lot of time wasted later on in finding out that we hadn't all agreed on what the issue was. In this case, it was a strategy for internal and external (subcontract) development and manufacture of a new chip assembly technology.

2. Discussing what affects our thinking. Next, we shared the past experiences we'd had and what we individually thought were our past business practices regarding this type of strategy decision. Openly sharing helped us understand why someone might say something a certain way during the strategy discussion. Being able to express this relieved us of the feeling that there were hidden agendas. We had a better understanding of what each of us was bringing as preconceived notions and why.

3. Agreeing on boundary conditions. We all agreed on a (short) list of key considerations for developing this strategy. We wanted to be able to test our final strategy against these conditions to see if our objectives were achieved. For example, we looked at: important business issues (budgets, units, volumes, cost, ROI/ROE, strategic factors, manufacturing flexibility for the future), key organizational value (how we treat people, proprietary issues and working with external parties), and people issues (skills, interest, development, retention, critical mass). We developed seven boundary conditions for this strategic decision. For example, boundary condition #2 was "Maintain an internal quick turn prototype facility where there is a demonstrated value-add. Otherwise, prototype externally."

4. Evaluating the solution set (pros/cons). Everyone at the meeting participated in compiling a list of pros and cons for developing and manufacturing internally or externally. In this case, these were such things as doing R&D internally or with external partners, whether to establish lab-scale capabilities, and reaching a manufacturing decision (make versus buy). It was important that we all contributed pros and cons for all elements, not succumbing to our biases.

5. Developing the final strategy. Using the data generated in step 4, we developed a strategy that maximized the pros and minimized the cons. In this case, decisions included: what to do internally, what to do with external suppliers/partners, and what would trigger changing this plan.

Conclusions. This was a major multimillion-dollar decision that had ramifications throughout our organization and the larger business unit. Before this process, this decision may have taken a year or more, getting made and remade multiple times. Using our new tools and skills, this work took us less than two days and gave us a solution that we could all support for both the short- and long-term. We found that it paid to have and to follow a process. It's often tempting to use shortcuts, but we know now that we would end up paying more in the end if we did.

-Ken Brown

Walking the Tightrope as Change Agents

Reiko Makiuchi, Nipporica Associates

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Chicago: A Mexican Director of a European-based conglomerate explains that the people in his Japanese subsidiary are too provincial. They don't know how to think globally. Can Nipporica help?

Germany: We interview managers of the German subsidiary, who say the Japanese are not team players and use German technology to "steal" German customers.

Tokyo: Japanese say they fought Corporate to build a research center in Japan with Japanese money. Now the corporation wants them to service the world from it, with no global funding or staffing.

France: A Japanese intercultural consultant stands before the 15 global business managers described above. The Japanese expect her to advocate their point of view. The Director and the Germans expect her to "educate" the Japanese. She sees a lack of recognition of corporate history and systems for global cooperation. Who's right?

Consultants work as change agents to help clients achieve their desired goals. In working with multicultural teams, we have found that the key to successfully carrying out such a change process is not only our own awareness and sensitivity to culturally relative expectations and assumptions regarding change, but also our coaching role to help managers approach the change process with the same cultural sensitivity. In formulating a working hypothesis jointly with our client companies on how to bring about the desired change most effectively, both on organizational and individual levels, we pay particular attention to the following areas: 1) attitude toward change; 2) rationale for change; 3) motivation for and resistance to change; and 4) pace of change.

In the example above, the Director wanted me to put the issues out on the table and deal with them through straightforward, logical discussion. Many of the Germans wanted the Director to institute policies which would direct the Japanese to be more global. The Japanese wanted a little recognition for their history of success despite years of Corporate change and turmoil. They sensed the animosity against them, and were thus resistant to change. In the meeting with all of them, I needed to balance a rational, task-focused approach with a more empathic approach involving team members' emotions and connectedness.

Consultants and managers who cannot detect and monitor these differing expectations regarding change, including their own, may find themselves frustrated, running into blocks in their teambuilding efforts and wondering why their well-intended interventions are not working. In leading a multicultural team to becoming a more productive, cooperative, and self-motivating group, managers need to constantly ask themselves such questions as “Does this group need, welcome, and is it ready for change?”, “What approach should I take to motivate them?”, and “Am I going too fast or too slow?”

Managers must make decisions on an ongoing basis on whether and how they are going to initiate change among their multicultural team members. They must also be realistic in accepting the fact that in making these decisions, they make judgments and cannot satisfy all the members all the time. I am reminded of the time I was caught trying to resolve a sexual harassment issue. I felt the need to inform the Japanese of the legal implications of sexual harassment in the U.S. When I had a meeting with the Japanese, asking for their input on how to deal effectively with the issue, they advised me against discussing the legal aspects. They said discussing legalities was too confrontational, and suggested we make the harassers feel like "the nails that stick out" by creating group pressure against them. This would produce behavioral change much more quickly and effectively, they said.

For consultants, working with intercultural teams poses an ethical question. Since team members represent multiple clients, whose standards and processes are we going to employ? How do we contract to get agreement, especially when getting cross-cultural agreement is part of the process for which we are contracted? We believe there is no one right answer. Helping our clients (team members, their superiors, clients) to recognize and understand the differences, and based upon that understanding formulate a unified team approach to change (or to tradition) is the approach we attempt to take. It is also the reason we work in bi- and multicultural teams, so that we can help each other see and deal with our own and our clients' biases.

Keys to Successful Intercultural Training in Japan

– Michiko Achilles, Nipporica

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Dainippon Ink and Chemicals, Inc. (DIC) is one of the largest chemical companies in the world and is known for its aggressive overseas merger and acquisition strategies. It has 136 overseas operations and employs 24,000 people.

As part of the company's globalization program, DIC committed itself to enhancing the international effectiveness of its Japanese staff. They hired Nipporica Associates to conduct five training sessions on intercultural communication for 70 selected employees. We designed and implemented an intensive two-day training for a maximum of 14 Japanese trainees. Each session was co-facilitated by a Japanese and an American trainer. The training was learner-centered, interactive, and experiential. During the two days, trainees had a chance to learn and apply some basic concepts such as the iceberg theory and DIE framework of intercultural effectiveness, and the transactional model and cultural context theory of communication, through exercises and case analysis in their native Japanese. They also learned and practiced active listening and socializing in role plays, and gave presentations: all in English. Many sessions lasted until 9:00 p.m., with trainees staying up even later to prepare their presentations.

Feedback from the trainees and from DIC's two Human Resources personnel, who observed all five sessions, consistently indicated: 1) high satisfaction with training design, content, method, and trainers' competencies, 2) enhanced awareness of cultural differences and their influence on behavior, 3) increased motivation to learn further, and 4) tough, but fun two days!

In addition to the needs-based training design, hard-working trainees, and experienced trainers, an important factor that contributed much to the success of the training was the teamwork between DIC's Human Resources Department and Nipporica staff. Two personnel from DIC Human Resources, the trainers, and myself, as Project Manager, met before and after each session. We discussed frankly and openly how to improve the training quality. Our ideas for improvement were implemented and evaluated at each subsequent session. For example, our biggest challenge was how to ensure maximum practice time for trainees so that they could put the ideas and skills into practice more readily when dealing internationally. To meet this challenge, we are considering changing from a two-day program to a three-day program, or adding follow-up sessions next year.

Finally, we believe training development is a long-term, on-going process to maximize trainees' learning, satisfaction, and performance. We are looking forward to continuing to work with DIC, which fully understands and supports this goal.

Pre-Departure Orientation or Skill- and Teambuilding?

– Lisa Kleintjes-Kamemoto, Nipporica Associates

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

In October, a client requested that we conduct a pre-departure orientation for a Japanese employee relocating to corporate research headquarters in the Northeast U.S. After consultation with our client, they requested that we provide two-way training and teambuilding: intercultural communication skills components for both the relocating employee and the receiving American research team, rather than just an orientation for the relocating employee.

Takashi Koda, a Nipporica Associate in Tokyo, conducted needs assessment interviews with four people and led the pre-departure orientation program for the employee in Japan. The training included business communication role plays and simulations with the client's expatriate staff in Japan.

Upon arrival in the U.S., the employee was met at his new location by Lisa Kamemoto, who had interviewed eight members of the receiving organization. She provided two days of local area logistical orientation and real-time communication skills practice for both work and everyday living situations. The program in the U.S. built on the knowledge the employee had gained in Japan. Work situations included an initial meeting with the client's Human Resources staff for briefings on insurance, workplace safety, etc.

On the third day after the employee's arrival, a half-day Introduction to Working with the Japanese training session was conducted for the receiving American team by Reiko Makiuchi and Ms. Kamemoto. The second half of the day included both the receiving team and the relocating employee, and was devoted to observation and debriefing of the team's initial business interactions. Expectations, concerns and goals were clarified, and each participant was able to experience first hand the emotions, difficulties and successes of working on a team with members from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

Team members felt that, though the training was short, they gained practical tools and skills for maintaining accurate communication and team productivity. One team member explained, “The training established a common bond and environment”, and another stated that the training “gave me confidence that I will succeed in my daily contact with my new Japanese colleague”. The Nipporica trainers felt that the new intercultural team gained a better understanding of the intercultural situations they will face, increased their awareness of one another's needs and of the time involved and effort needed to communicate effectively across cultures.

One key to the success of this training was the cooperation, support and enthusiasm of the client, both in Japan and the U.S. A second was the design, based on an intimate understanding of the client's globalization strategy, the needs and desires of the personnel involved, the business and life situations in which the participants would find themselves, and the 23 years of intercultural training experience of the project staff.

Intercultural Teams – Reality From Inside

– Shelly Westebbe, Nipporica Associates

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

I would like to share some personal notes on intercultural teamwork from the perspective of a “mostly American” who learned a new definition of cooperation. Through working on a multicultural team, I was forced to move from an intellectual awareness of ambiguity to feeling and living with it in a deeper way than I had ever known. As I learned to second-guess myself, I became more and more uncomfortable. Not only did we have differences in communicative styles, we had differences in personalities, thinking and reaction times, and daytime (and nighttime) schedules. I realized much more of what I did not know, and my reaction was to withdraw, in order to avoid making mistakes and because of the surprises my behavior created. My ego and self-confidence seemed to go through their own “culture shock”.

Fortunately, my team members kept on working and communicating. Through their efforts and those of Nipporica, I realized a new definition of the team concept. It was not necessary for me to become Japanese any more than it was necessary for my partners to act American. One of the most valuable techniques I learned from Nipporica not only helped me to survive as a team member but has helped me in my marriage. Nipporica taught me how to actively problem solve across cultures, using the mutual listening/validation/solution approach with other team members. If you haven't had a chance to use it, I highly recommend it. It works with teams that mix differences such as Extrovert–Introvert, Male–Female, American–Japanese, Thinker–Doer, etc.

To make a long story short, I learned I have to take responsibility to explain my perceptions and frustrations to my team members, let go of my ego and need for stroking as much possible, and trust. More importantly, it is crucial to do these things at the right time and in culturally appropriate ways for your team members, not just when you need to.

I have been meaning to write this and more for many months. Please take a chance and work with a partner from a different culture or subculture. As the Peace Corps says, it is the toughest job you will ever love. I am honored to have my team members as my friends after this experience, and I hope to continue to use these skills and awareness in my future work.

You Are More Intelligent Than You Think

– Mr. Doug Bowen, Nipporica Associates

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

People who work in the field of cross-cultural communication are often asked how to separate personal preferences and styles from cultural preferences and styles. The fact is both are important in learning to deal with people effectively, and in fact, it doesn't really matter which is which. Recently, I came across a theory about how individuals may learn in different ways, which I felt might be useful to our work in the intercultural field.

Howard Gardner, a Professor of Education at Harvard, has been promoting the theory of multiple intelligences for several years, and he has gained a significant following. Multiple intelligences means that human beings have a wide variety of ways in which they can learn. He labels these different styles of learning linguistic, logical/mathematical, intrapersonal, spatial, musical, bodily/ kinesthetic, and interpersonal. Since these terms are a little too weighty for most people, teachers have been using the phrases word smart, logic smart, self smart, picture smart, music smart, body smart, and people smart. See if you can identify which type of intelligence is dominant for you by reading these short descriptions.

Word-smart people usually have a good memory for names, dates, and places. They possess well-developed vocabularies, use language skillfully, and enjoy reading and writing. They like to use word processors, are good at word games and jokes, and are also good listeners.

Logic-smart people are good at math. They like to explore patterns and relationships. Putting things in understandable groups and orders satisfies them. They like using spreadsheets and databases, experiment to test what they don't understand, and enjoy opportunities to solve problems. They usually excel at strategy games such as chess.

Self-smart people are aware of their own strengths, weaknesses and inner feelings. They have a deep sense of self confidence, independence, and are often strong willed. They like to be alone, and motivate themselves to do well on independent projects. They trust their intuition when solving problems.

Picture-smart people think in images. For this reason, they are sometimes seen as daydreamers. They are able to visualize clearly when thinking, and often express themselves with maps, charts, and diagrams. They enjoy the visual arts (movies, museums, etc.) and art activities (drawing, photography, etc.).

Music-smart people appreciate the elements of music. They are sensitive to pitch, rhythm, and timbre in their environment, and are more likely to be uncomfortable if there is some discordance in their surroundings, such as the high-pitched whining of machinery. Music often helps them to concentrate and relax when studying or reading. They often sing or hum to themselves, or tap out a rhythm while working. They may have extensive music collections or play a musical instrument.

Body-smart people need opportunities to use their bodies. They may fidget during periods of inactivity, as they process knowledge through bodily sensations. They are often skillful in an area that demands bodily control, such as sports or crafts. Hands-on, physical activities are their preferred ways of learning and solving problems (role-playing, simulations, etc.). They often unconsciously touch people when conversing.

People-smart people enjoy being around others. They are usually very active socially and have many friends. They learn best by relating to others and participating in cooperative group projects and activities. They are good at communicating and organizing, but may be perceived as manipulative. They are good at expressing empathy for the feelings of others, and respond automatically to the moods and temperaments of others.

Were you able to identify your dominant intelligence? You probably found that you fit into two or three categories. You may even have found one self-descriptor in each category. Gardner says that the potential for all these styles of intelligence exist within each of us.

So, why do human beings have so many ways to learn? Survival! Differing environments demand diverse intelligences to solve the types of problems that arise. Piaget's research on the development of learning stages shows that all of us began learning in the bodily/kinesthetic way. Piaget called it the sensorimotor 

stage of development. Babies quickly learn to satisfy their hunger by putting whatever is in their hands into their mouths. They also learn that crying gets results whether they are hungry, wet or unhappy. Later on as our world of experience expanded, we developed other styles of learning. Soon, young children learn to use language to satisfy their needs more exactly: "juice", "go bye-bye", etc. When we're old enough to go to school, we develop social skills so as not to get beaten up every recess.

Personal preferences in learning styles should be important to schools and teachers, businesses and trainers, but cultural preferences often override personal preferences. Western cultures tend to emphasize the linguistic and logical/mathematical styles. The way we teach, test and promote our children through the school system singles out these ways of learning. The other styles of learning tend to be recognized only as extracurricular activities (music, art, sports, etc.). This means that children who have other dominant styles of learning are not realizing their full potential. The point of Gardner's work was to convince schools that students with other dominant styles can be taught to use linguistic and logical/mathematical styles if they are allowed to approach a concept from their own dominant direction first.

Likewise, businesses might not be getting as much as they could out of their employees. Company culture does not reward them for their dominant strengths but instead insists that they learn and perform in a company-specified manner.

It is reasonable to assume that different cultures will favor different learning styles, or at the least prioritize them differently. High-context cultures (Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin) are likely to value interpersonal, spatial, and musical intelligences more highly than most low-context cultures.

For trainers the implications are clear. Materials and workshops must be designed to try to make use of all the intelligences. Employees must be encouraged in their own dominant learning styles first. This will guarantee more success as all participants find a channel to connect with the training. One of the problems that teachers and trainers all over the world face is that we all tend to teach to our own strengths. One of the attractions in Nipporica Associates is that we build on each other's strengths. Our materials and workshops demonstrate creativity and variety. We are sensitive to differences of all kinds, including those in learning styles. Gardner's theory may be new, but teachers/trainers have been using it for years. We've used our intuition and our desire to communicate in place of theory. Our newest products, the simulations Ecotonos and Cultural Pinwheels, use most of the intelligences. The group work is very interpersonal; the debriefings are basically linguistic; the visualization of the group dynamic is spatial; deciding how to color the pinwheels is mostly intrapersonal; putting together the pinwheels is bodily/kinesthetic; and the explanations are logical/mathematical in that they organize information and experience.

We need to continue to make use of our own various learning styles and to be aware of the learning styles of our clients. A truly intercultural person will be able to effectively utilize and relate to a wide repertoire of styles.

Bibliography: Frames of Mind, Howard Gardner "The Puzzle of Genius"; Newsweek, June 28, 1993. The Piaget work is, unfortunately, out of print.

Diversity In Corporate America

– Dr. Toshi Kii, Nipporica Associates

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Corporate America's human resource management has been heading in a new direction in recent years. "Workforce diversity" has become a buzz word among many of the Fortune 500 companies. They have established the position of Diversity Manager, or Director in some cases, within the Human Resources Department. Indeed, the notion of "valuing diversity" has become an important strategy for human resource management so as to effectively utilize all human resources.

Since the publication of the Hudson Institute's Workforce 2000 in 1987, corporate America has been aware that the demographic changes of the recent past and the near future will profoundly affect workforce compositions in terms of race, gender, and ethnicity in the 1990's and beyond. According to Institute estimates, minority members, women, and immigrants will account for 85% of the growth in the labor force during the 1990's. To compete in a global market the demographic changes are making U.S. industries recognize a need for improved intergroup relations in the workplace.

While many corporations are undertaking activities such as diversity training, they lack sufficient empirical grounding. So far, diversity has been approached from a perspective of moral appeal. It is based on the faith that diversity is good and therefore it must have a positive effect on organizations. This notion has a tendency to appeal to individual goodwill. Sensitivity training with regard to race and gender is often utilized in this regard. While there is nothing wrong with a psychological approach to the diversity issue, it requires a deeper understanding of the influence of racial/ethnic/gender intergroup relations if organizations are to effectively deal with a diverse workforce. Past studies on diversity were based on differences in age, gender and tenure. These studies showed that diverse work groups were beneficial for creative tasks and problem solving, but that homogeneous groups were more socially integrated and exhibited higher job satisfaction and lower turnover. Furthermore, productivity of homogeneous groups was sometimes better than that of heterogeneous groups.

Two colleagues, four graduate students, and I at Georgia State University in Atlanta have embarked on a research project on diversity in large corporations. Given the implied tension between individual proclivity to homogeneity (variously suggested in the literature) and the demographic heterogeneity occurring in the workplace, we feel that diversity management and training require empirically grounded knowledge and understanding of intergroup dynamics in the multicultural corporate workplace.

We need to investigate at a minimum the following questions if we desire to understand the complexities inherent in intergroup relations:

1. What are the structured relations, norms, and shared understandings that regulate corporate life?

2. To what extent do organizational values and practices involve the concept of diversity?

3. What impact do these have on employee morale, self-esteem, self-efficiency, racial/ethnic/gender identity, aspirations, and organizational commitment?

4. What impact does corporate culture with respect to diversity have on organizational effectiveness and productivity?

5. What racial/ethnic/gender attributes do workers bring to the workplace?

6. How is an organizational culture created out of a diverse workforce?

7. How do minorities utilize corporate worldviews?

8. How and by whom is diversity conceptualized?

9. When is ethnicity salient, and how is it activated?

10. How do workers integrate racial/ethnic/gender identities with their corporate identities?

11. How do the routine dynamics of the workplace reinforce or challenge "official" corporate culture with regard to diversity?

We have come to recognize that there are three levels we must go through in order to be interculturally literate. They are awareness, knowledge, and skill levels, which are integrated in all Nipporica services. With respect to managing diversity, much of corporate America is now at the awareness level. It recognizes that diversity in the workforce is a given. It recognizes that the way it effectively utilizes its diverse workforce will define success or failure in an increasingly diverse global market. It has also recognized that discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and other diverse attributes in the workplace invites legal consequences. Yet, it has tended to rely on the old assimilation model to deal with diversity. In other words, if only these workers who are "different" would become assimilated into the majority group, everything would be fine. But things haven't worked out that way and corporate America has come to realize that equality does not necessarily mean equal treatment.

Managing diversity requires knowledge of intergroup relations. Corporate America needs to abandon the assimilation model and to create a new model which recognizes the differences among groups, yet utilizes the full resources contained in them. We need to understand the complexities of race/ethnic/gender relations in the workplace and then venture into "managing" diversity. The model developed by Dianne Saphiere and Sheila Ramsey: identifying differences, validating, understanding and then utilizing them, is based on this principle. However, much more research must be conducted and additional tools developed.

 

 

8425 Cherokee Lane, Leawood, KS 66206, U.S.A., tel (913) 901-0243 fax (913) 901-0244

© Copyright 1989-2004, Nipporica Associates, All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction of this Site in whole or in part is prohibited without permission.
Trademarks may not be used without permission from the trademark owner.
 
 

Revised: January 8, 2004.