Ecotonos Integrated Into Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Cadet Training Program
Dr. Frum Himelfarb &
Sergeant Mike Gaudet, RCMP Training Directorate
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
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]](images/decurve.gif)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
|
