Monday, March 30, 2009
Cross Cultural
Because I am bound byconfidentiality I cannot share names with you which I would prefer to do. The Vice President for HR of the International division of a large global corporation asked a simple question: "Given your American heritage, how could you work with executives from Brazil, Mexico, and other South American companies?" This is a fair question for all that it implies; yet, I began to wonder about simply replacing certain words such as, "Given your personal history, how can you work with others whose personal history is so different from your own?" How would you answer the question?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My answer would be: "That is a very fair question -- my first response, so I can answer you fully, is a question back to you: are there aspects of my heritage, or your experiences with American consultants, that give you particular hesitation?"
ReplyDeleteAt first blush reading: "personal history is so different..."(yours and theirs) translates as divide, gap, imbalanced relationship fear. An HR contracting person with any organization is always, it seems to me, concerned that executives receiving a service they contract for (then lose direct control over) will not be offended in any way and the service be an accurate (guaranteed) solution to a problem/need, however nebulously defined. In particular, it is sounds like a probe about a presumed American tendency to impose solutions and superior knowledge on less powerful peoples(cultures) without empathy or awareness, in addition to the usual contracting concerns. I would want to probe in return (an inviting conversational probe) messages and experiences within the question. And, indicate openly that this conversation is important to you in building linkages that yield trust and clarity, as a beginning. That you also want to bridge gaps and know what might otherwise be hidden in order to be successful. Navigating towards universal principles of communication, once concerns are rested, gets one closer to the ultimate goal -- free wheeling rapport -- with gaps in similarity understood as opportunity for fresh insight between you, essential in crafting mutually engaged understanding and more effective business solutions. It is a legitimate concern that those who might believe themselves to be in positions of less power would want clarified. The ideal I believe we seek on a larger scale is respect and good will as, first, reflexive civility, then, presumed trust which thrives amongst the differences. In holding the ideal in individual awareness and self governance, we offer ourselves as a standard of behavior with hope for "infectiousness".
I'd probably answer the first question with a story about how I worked with a group of Brazilian professors and students. How I conducted a type workshop using Spanish overheads, a Portuguese translator, and "Sólo digo un pequeño español." I'd talk about how the results of the learning exercise in the workshop showed type differences to be universal...
ReplyDeleteMore broadly, I guess I'm saying that most relationships develop along the lines of attempting to establish some sense of commonality, similarity and familiarity (which is uncertainty reduction and thus primal). Telling stories is a powerful tool. Telling stories about one's experiences similarly is so.
The power of self-disclosure was a point made by Sidney Jourard in The Transparent Self and subsequently incorporated into the JoHari Window.
Of course, listening--active listening--is the other part of this process.
But,then, one of the reasons I never tried to establish an OD relationship with any organization is that I never wanted be in an overly intimate, long-term relationship with a company or an executive (for coaching). Too much a challenge.