Fall 2008 IMQ by Intercultural Management Institute

Intercultural Management Quarterly

Integrating Culture and Management in Global Organizations

In This Issue...

Fall 2008 Vol. 9, No. 3

Walking on Egg Shells ............................................................ 3 by Barbara Deane and Donna Stringer Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Midlife Crisis ........................................................... 8 A Discussion with the Authors Managing Environmental Space ..................................... 11 by Richard Harris Japan and the U.S. in the Workplace ............................. 15 by Motoo Unno Videoconferencing toward Deliberative International Discussion ..................................................... 19 by Ibrahim Saleh, Roberta Fiske-Rusciano and Frank Louis Rusciano Across the Cultural Divide .................................................. 25 The Invisible Border: Latinos in America Reviewed by Dania Straughan

From the Editor Greetings! This issue represents the peaceful transfer of power from the previous editor of IMQ, Chris Saenger, to me, your new fearless leader (I ran as the change candidate). I’m excited to take over the reins, and I hope to continue the tradition of quality you’ve come to expect from this publication. This issue of IMQ has some familiar voices, with a healthy portion of new fare thrown in to make what I believe to be diverse and compelling reading for all of you. First, we’ll take a look at a candid discussion of race relations in the workplace, in a piece that will continue in the next issue of IMQ. From there we’ll celebrate the release of a brand new book from IMI’s own Gary Weaver and Adam Mendelson, and the authors themselves will stop by to lend further insight into their research and conclusions. Richard Harris continues his wonderful series on managing space, giving us a fascinating look at cultural perceptions of environment, and IMI’s newest member, Dr. Motoo Unno, lets us in on key secrets about how to manage Japanese and American relations at work. My current bias shines through as a professor from the American University in Cairo and his associates detail a videoconferencing program designed to promote cross-cultural dialogue between American and Egyptian students (I’m in Cairo as of press time, ﬁnishing up a four-month stint), and IMI’s Dania Straughan reviews a new book about the Latino/Anglo cultural divide in America.

IMQ STAFF

Publisher: Dr. Gary R. Weaver Managing Editor: Dan Deming

Editorial Review Board

David Bachner, Annmarie McGillicuddy, Adam Mendelson, Darrel Onizuka, Chris Saenger, Karen Santiago, Gary Weaver, Sherry Zarabi The Intercultural Management Quarterly (IMQ) is published by the Intercultural Management Institute at American University. IMQ combines original research conducted in the ﬁeld of interculutral management with the applied perspectives of industry experts, professors and students.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Professionals, scholars, and students are invited to submit articles of 1,000-2,000 words on issues related to the study and practice of intercultural management. Articles must be innovative and contribute to the knowledge in the ﬁeld but should avoid overly academic jargon. Footnotes or endnotes are discouraged except for direct quotes or citations. Each submission is refereed by the members of the IMQ editorial review board. Accepted pieces are subject to editing.

REPRODUCTION

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the express written permission of the Publication Manager. Please contact the Managing Editor for reprint availability.

CONTACT IMQ

Intercultural Management Quarterly Intercultural Management Institute 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016-8177 Phone: (202) 885-6436 Fax: (202) 885-1331 imqeditor@american.edu

And ﬁnally, 2009 is a big year at IMI, as we celebrate our 10th Anniversary! Look for information about our annual conference throughout the issue— we’re pulling out all of the stops this year, and we’re eager to have all of you as a part of it. Enjoy the issue, and I look forward to meeting all of you at the IMI 10th Anniversary Conference: Milestones in Intercultural Relations!

Dan Deming

Managing Editor

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY W

Walking on Egg Shells: Fear of Talking About Diﬀerences in the Workplace by Barbara Deane and Donna Stringer Part One of a Two-Part Series Introduction & Research

hy are white men afraid to talk to black women? Why are black women fearful of talking to white women? What concerns white women about conversations with white men? Why are black men anxious about interacting with white men? Why is the ability to interact across these differences important in the workplace? Racial and gender differences are still causing people to walk on eggshells in the workplace according to the data from our study. In spite of hundreds of hours of corporate diversity training and even a recent focus on difficult, cross-racial dialogues, many managers and employees still have trouble engaging in authentic conversations with people different from themselves. Effective interaction at work is how people get to know each other and build trust — the basic infrastructure of relationships that deliver organizational performance. Employee engagement, high-performing teams, and employee satisfaction are key elements of organizational performance that have relationships among coworkers at their core.

Diversity training has seldom taken into account three key factors. First, historically, relationships between men and women, people of color and whites, were filled with inequality, distrust, mistreatment and exclusion—issues that people are eager to avoid in any context, but which are even more uncomfortable in mixed-race, mixed-gender settings. Second, diversity training may not have taught the skills that would allow people to be comfortable discussing these historical relationships when they surface. Third, style differences related to conflict may result in misperception of behaviors and misunderstanding of communication. One result of these omissions is that people avoid discussions about differences for fear that they will unintentionally offend the other. This, of course, only leads to further lack of information and misperceptions. This article examines new research about the fears and concerns reported by people in four broad identity groups. In addition, it suggests ways that organizations can help employees and managers overcome their angst and interact effectively across differences to build relationships that improve employee satisfaction and organizational performance.

Barbara Deane is Vice President of The GilDeane Group, Inc. in Seattle, Washington and editor-in-chief of its publications, DiversityCentral.com and the Cultural Diversity at Work Archive.

Donna Stringer is a social psychologist and President of Executive Diversity Services, Inc., an organizational development ﬁrm specializing in cultural competence, diversity and inclusion located in Seattle, Washington.

Fall 2008

Egg Shells… Intercultural Management Institute The Study

Skills Institutes Spring 2009

We conducted our research over three years, gathering data from 242 participants. The participants were mixed gender, mixed race groups of employees from several Fortune 500 companies and government agencies. The data collection occurred as part of an exercise that asked individuals to identify their fears and concerns when interacting or partnering with members of each of the four groups. The four groups were: women of color (28 percent), men of color (14 percent), white women (35 percent) and white men (23 percent). We used the words “fears” and “concerns” because some people reacted to the word “fear” as too strong to describe what they felt. However, whatever the name, it stopped them from acting; consequently, we used the words interchangeably and it stimulated participants to think about why they were not acting. The results were very consistent across time, groups and organizations. We continue to collect data from additional groups.

Programming for International Education January 24-25, 2009 with David Bachner, Scholar-in-Residence, School of International Service, American University

Cross-cultural Leadership Competence February 21-22, 2009 with Bram Groen, Faculty, School of International Service, American University

10th Annual IMI Conference March 12-13, 2009

Building Mediator Capacity in a Multi-cultural Context April 4-5, 2009 with Gururaj Kumar, Training and Policy Program Director, ICONS Project, University of Maryland, and Jared Ordway, Program Specialist, National Association for Community Mediation

The Findings

Each group reported concerns about interacting or partnering with each of the other groups, including their own group. These concerns remained hidden until facilitated discussion gave permission for them to surface. One of the beneﬁts of this exercise was the realization that the fears were just that: fears, not reality. Because the fear stopped conversations from occurring, people had rarely taken the opportunity to check out the reality of their perceptions. The graphic on the following page illustrates the major concerns expressed:

Leadership and Diversity: The Theory and Practice of Managing Cultural Dynamics in Organizations April 18-19, 2009 Ben Alexander, Senior Partner, Alexander Consulting and Training, Inc

www.imi.american.edu for schedule and registration

Intercultural Management Quarterly

Figure 1: Fears and Concerns About Interacting Group

Concerned About

White Women

Women of Color

White Men

Men of Color

Fall 2008

White Women (35%)

Women of Color (28%)

White Men (23%)

Men of Color (14%)

* Competition * Communication style diﬀerences * Judgmentalness * Cattiness

* Being misinterpreted * Defensiveness * Physical & cultural diﬀerences

* Not being valued or heard * Competitiveness * Not open to equal partnerships

* Misunderstanding due to cultural diﬀerences * Not being valued/ heard * Being perceived as racist

* Perception of racism * Don’t share history * Not acknowledging problems of women of color * Assumed solidarity

* Competitiveness * Class and status diﬀerences * Assumed solidarity

* Good old boys mentality * Attitude about reverse discrimination * Inequality

* Competitiveness * Sexism * Lack of support * Ambivalence

* Perception of insensitivity * Perception of patronizing * Perception of sexism

* Perceived as racist * Ego issues * Perceived as sexist * Vulnerability * Oﬀending others * Communicating/ giving feedback

* Perceived as racist * Time to build relationships * Opening up/being vulnerable

* Complimenting without oﬀending * Misperception of motives * Past history

* Past history * Complimenting without oﬀending * Misperception of motives * Taking care of them (mothers/ sisters)

* Disagreeing without damaging partnerships

* Fear of info being used against me * Disagreeing without damaging partnerships * Past history

Egg Shells… Understanding each group’s fears and concerns “The fear that I heard in my father’s voice ... when he realized that I really believed I could do anything a white boy could do and had every intention of proving it, was not at all like the fear I heard when one of us was ill. ... It was another fear, a fear that the child, in challenging the white world’s assumptions, was putting himself in the path of destruction.” —James Baldwin, 1963 (Mazel, 1998). To understand each group’s fears and concerns, we review the themes in each group as well as statements made by members of each group.

also talked about being excluded based on class or status diﬀerences. “I knew from the beginning she wouldn’t put me on the project team. I didn’t graduate from Howard and am too dark so she doesn’t want to be seen as promoting me in the company.” White women White women’s dominant fear with other white women was competition and resulting lack of support. “Every woman in this organization should be celebrating my success as a model for other women in the company. Instead, they are accusing me of not being qualiﬁed and of receiving favoritism.”

With white men, they were con“She didn’t know my capabilities because she consistently failed to invite me to participate in decisions or prob- cerned about being patronized or seen lem solving that would allow me to use my skills.” as not really qualiﬁed. One woman reported having her boss treat her like his daughter. Women of color When she pointed this out to him, he was ﬁrst surprised For women of color, betrayal permeated their concerns. and then acknowledged that he did see her as “like a When discussing both white women and white men, daughter.” Once this conversation took place, she rethey talked about being excluded or having their com- ported some tension between them until he “got over bepetencies ignored. “I spent over a decade working with ing called on his behavior.” White women also reported a white woman I considered a friend. When she had the experiencing exclusion from critical meetings, decisions opportunity to promote someone she totally overlooked and events—behavior they interpreted as being related me and later said she didn’t realize I had the competen- to their white male colleagues “not thinking about us.” cies required for the job. She didn’t know my capabilities because she consistently failed to invite me to participate With women of color, white women most feared being in decisions or problem solving that would allow me to misinterpreted, but they also feared defensiveness on the use my skills. When I confronted her with this, she told part of women of color. “When I tried to ask an African me I was being too sensitive.” Another said, “White American colleague what she meant by a comment about men are so busy taking care of white women that they discrimination, she got very emotional and accused me often don’t even see us. When I asked a vice president to of not being aware of what was going on around me. I mentor me, he acted surprised and then said he didn’t asked her because I knew I wasn’t as aware as I should realize I wanted out of the admin ranks. I never was in be but her response made it hard for me to continue the the admin ranks!” conversation because I felt like I had just been accused of being the problem instead of part of the solution.” Competition became a theme in talking with women of color for organizational recognition, jobs and promoIn discussing interactions with men of color, white tions. “If they already have their token Latina, I may as women’s concerns were whether they could be friendly well not apply.” Within communities of color, women

Intercultural Management Quarterly

and open without being perceived as being interested in a relationship beyond the work environment. Men of color Competition for organizational recognition, jobs and promotions was also a theme with men of color. Men of color were also concerned about whether they could compliment white women without offending them or being perceived as having ulterior or sexual motives. They often did not trust that what they said to either white women or white men would not be misunderstood or misused. A primary concern was that white men would be looking for how black men fit stereotypes. One black man said, “I feel like white men are often looking for errors in my language, my logic, my performance to validate a stereotype that I am not as good as them. I know this may be more my fear than reality, but it does affect the honesty of my interactions with white men.” A particularly difficult discussion surrounded the concern men of color expressed in interacting with women of color. Men of color reported wanting to be respectful of women of color. They also reported that women of color often remind them of their mothers and sisters, which sometimes stopped their ability to have candid conversations about some topics. Being less than candid in these conversations appeared to come from two places: first, they didn’t want to say anything that would be hurtful or disrespectful. Second, particularly for African American men, they feared the reaction they might get from their African American “sisters.” One African American man explained it this way: “If we learn to be direct communicators, we also learn from our mothers and sisters early in life that we can expect a direct response in return. If we say something that our mother and/or sisters respond to in a negative way, it can feel like ‘being hit upside the head.’ This can lead us to become more indirect with our mothers and sisters to avoid such strong reactions. Later in life, if other women

of color remind us of our mothers and sisters we might be less direct and/or less honest with them as well.” Men of color reported that this reaction to women of color creates a tension between wanting to be respectful and wanting to be authentic/honest. Not knowing what a woman’s reactions might be (and therefore whether it is “safe” to have a conversation) can lead to avoiding the conversation altogether. The concern about interacting with other men of color was particularly poignant. Men of color reported that much of the support they receive and those they feel can genuinely understand their experiences, are other men of color. Consequently, there was a concern about how to disagree without negatively affecting a relationship since cultivating these relationships was often seen as a basic survival technique. They wanted to be able to be truthful without losing respect or unintentionally offending others. Like the other groups, these concerns can be interpreted as fear of being mis-perceived. Additionally, however, men of color were clearly concerned about the negative career impacts if they were misperceived—concerns based on historical experiences that go beyond the disruption of effective work relationships. White men White men primarily feared being perceived as unsupportive or prejudiced when interacting with both white women and women of color. They were concerned that white women would perceive them as patronizing and that they could easily and unintentionally offend women of color. “Women are so sensitive and I never know what to expect if we have a really difficult discussion. I am afraid to give any negative feedback for fear she will cry—and then I don’t have any idea what to do. If I try to touch her physically to provide support it could be seen as sexual harassment. Conversations with women often feel very risky.”

Continued on page 24 . . . Fall 2008

America’s Midlife Crisis

A Discussion with the Authors

his past August saw the release of an influential new book, one to which the IMQ has significant ties. America’s Midlife Crisis, co-authored by the IMQ’s own Publisher, Gary R. Weaver, and its former Managing Editor, Adam Mendelson, enters the fray at the perfect time, as it takes on the heady task of explaining the cultural reasons behind America’s foreign policy decisions throughout the country’s short history. The authors use American culture, from the country’s Puritan roots, to later European immigration and up through the present concern with the so-called “clash of civilizations,” to advance an explanation for its current standing in the world. America’s Midlife Crisis is a compelling read for all who are interested in the future of this troubled superpower. The authors were kind enough to answer a few questions for IMQ about the new book: IMQ: Explain the title of the book. Gary Weaver & Adam Mendelson: Adult American males seem to go through a critical period in their development when they need to decide if they are going to become fully responsible adults or if they will regress to earlier childish or adolescent behavior. Similarly, we think that the country is going through a midlife crisis, after which we will emerge as either fully “grown up” and mature adults or we will regress to earlier, adolescent behavior. Traditionally, Americans have either been totally involved in world affairs, often with military force, or we have totally withdrawn behind our own borders. Mature adulthood accepts the reality that we cannot economically, politically, or militarily withdraw from the world and we must accept the reality that we need

to work cooperatively with other nations through various agreements and international organizations. Mature adulthood means that we cannot withdraw to childish and immature utopian idealism or adolescent cynicism. We must be internationally active and yet still maintain many of our values that guide our public policies. The issue is whether we progress to greater adulthood as members of the community of nations, and even play a leadership role in terms of our behavior and values, or whether we regress to withdraw from the world with increased isolationism or unilateralism.

IMQ: We are often told, and it is noted in the book, the “America doesn’t really have a culture.” Why, in your opinion, is this untrue? GW & AM: It is untrue. The U.S. has a dominant or mainstream culture and dozens of large ethnic, racial, and regional subcultures. And, this culture is not European, although there are similarities with many European cultures and the mainstream culture probably has its roots in northern Europe. This culture is also not a “melting pot” or a mixture of diﬀerent cultures without a dominant culture. It is fair to say that the U.S. is becoming a more pluralistic, multicultural country that can be described as a mosaic or tapestry where people can be hyphenated Americans...African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and so on.

Dr. Gary Weaver is the founder and executive director of the Intercultural Management Institute (IMI) as well as a member of the faculty of the School of International Service at American University, the largest school of international aﬀairs in the country. Dr. Weaver is also the Publisher of the Intercultural Management Quarterly. Adam Mendelson is the Managing Editor of The Middle East Journal and serves on the Editorial Review Board of the IMQ. He has an M.A. in International Aﬀairs from American University’s School of International Service, and has also served as the Managing Editor of the IMQ.

Intercultural Management Quarterly

IMQ: There is a section in your book about “Managing Diversity.” Given that America is such a diverse country, how would a manager maximize workplace productivity under this model? GW & AM: It’s like a garden...if you treat all plants the same, you’ll have an ugly garden. Some plants need more water, some more sunshine, and so on. People from some cultures are motivated to be productive because they value being part of team while others work hard because they get paid well because of their individual efforts. A manager needs to have a wide array of ways of motivating people and he or she needs to be flexible enough to understand differences in communicating between different cultures. Some people build trust with face-to-face communication where time must be devoted to developing relationships before you get to work. In another culture, you can send emails and people prefer to get down to business without developing personal relationships.

IMQ: Explain the “cultural cookie cutter” and how it differs from America’s “melting pot” myth. GW & AM: The cultural cookie cutter assumes that people will come to the U.S. and enter the “mainstream” by fitting a mold with a white, Protestant, male, Anglo-Saxon shape. Thus, a Polish Catholic or Jewish immigrant becomes a Protestant, changes his name from Stripinski to Stevens, forces his children to only speak English without an accent, and he and his family are “American.” But this is not a melting pot with all cultures contributing their share to the American society. Rather, it is one of giving up cultural characteristics that wouldn’t fit the cookie-cutter mold. Of course, people of color could not change their skin color or hair texture and therefore no matter how much they behaved like average Americans and shared basic American values (acculturated) they were not accepted as full members of the society because they were identifiably different. They could be excluded. They did not “melt” into the pot. Racism is also a part of our history.

Fall 2008

Today we’ve replaced both terms with “tapestry” and “mosaic”...the idea that you can keep your diﬀerences, and they are welcomed. Yet if you pull one thread out of the tapestry or one piece out the mosaic, you destroy it.

IMQ: How did the concept of “Manifest Destiny” help to shape the modern American cultural experience? GW & AM: Manifest Destiny was the idea that it was America’s divinely ordained destiny to expand from the East to the West Coast, and even overseas. It is a spin-oﬀ of the idea of John Winthrop’s City on the Hill wherein Americans were chosen by God to become leaders on the continent and an example, a “beacon,” around the world. This concept was integral to the American drive to expand territorially and commercially; increasing American power was simply God’s will. Culturally, this enhanced the American sense of exceptionalism. Americans have long seen themselves as exceptional, individualistic people in an exceptional, one-of-a-kind nation. Unfortunately, it has also served as justiﬁcation for the poor treatment of American Indians and the idea that American values were somehow universal, or ought to be.

IMQ: You have some strong thoughts on whether or not English should be the official language of the United States. Why or why not should it be the official language? GW & AM: In 1789, the famous early American educator Noah Webster wrote, “A national language is a band of national union.” He wrote this at a time when nearly a quarter of Americans did not speak English. Today, over 96% of Americans already speak English. There’s no need for an official language. English has become a nationally unifying force. I doubt that there are any immigrants who don’t want their children to learn English. Indeed, over half of the children of immigrant parents do not speak the language of their parents’ homeland. Making English the “official language” just isn’t necessary.

America’s Midlife Crisis… IMQ: What advice would you give to, say, foreign businesspeople who are reading your book to gain insight into how deal with Americans on a cultural level? GW & AM: The best way to learn the culture is by interacting with Americans. This is where you get the understanding of internal culture...basic values, beliefs, worldviews, and so on. You can’t learn this from lectures, books, or movies.

IMQ: You describe America as very “future-oriented.” How does this help or hinder its foreign policy? GW & AM: It hurts Americans because we have trouble putting things into context. We tend to ignore the past (Henry Ford once said “History is bunk.”) We can’t really understand other cultures unless we can put their contemporary behavior in the context of their past experiences, basic values, beliefs, and worldviews. On the other hand, it helps us maintain a fairly optimistic outlook. We tend to focus on the rosy, indistinct future rather than the gray, murky past. Like Woodrow Wilson, we can idealistically plunge into the thicket of foreign affairs and try to shake things up for the better. One could even argue that some of this thinking was present with the current war in Iraq. However, the more we ignore the past, the more likely we are to get stuck in its morass by ignoring its impact on other cultures’ worldviews.

pride that we’ve reached a day when some of the highest glass ceilings and obstacles have cracked. For some older Americans, perhaps there’s a bit of surprise that this seems to have happened all at once. But for the younger generation, the so-called Millennials, there is some sense of the historic nature of this but also a sense of, “Well, why not?” Millennials generally have grown up with an acceptance of diversity, many are surrounded by it, and many expect to see it reﬂected in their leaders as well. I think that in three, four decades, the national election that involves two tickets of middle-aged white men squaring oﬀ against each other is going to be the exception rather than the rule. Internationally, this is a moment of tremendous goodwill towards the United States. Many people around the world are excited again by America and the idea of America. There are stratospherically high expectations of President-elect Obama in every corner of the globe. I don’t think that anyone, anywhere seriously believes that he can meet all of them. But I think that it bodes well for America and our place in the world that expectations for us as a country are high. We often seem to be at our best when the chips are down, so let’s hope that we can rise to the occasion. i

America’s Midlife Crisis: The Future of a Troubled Superpower is published by Intercultural Press, 2008, $24.95.

IMQ: The subtitle of the last chapter in the book asks the question: “Where do we go from here?” Well? GW & AM: Long term, this election may prove to be a real watershed for the acceptance of diversity in America. We’ve had two women (Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin) as well as Barack Obama appear all over the media, for months on end, demonstrating that they are capable of taking on the challenges of the highest ofﬁces in the country. For all Americans, there’s a sense of

Intercultural Management Quarterly

Managing Environmental Space by Richard Harris

Part 4 of a Series Thus we confront the central problem: any landscape is composed not only of what lies before our eyes but what lies within our heads. —D.W. Meinig

allace Stegner once remarked that, whatever kind of landscape a child is exposed to in his or her early years, it will act as a sort of gauze through which the world is perceived ever after. At a basic level this is fairly obvious; many native New Yorkers would recoil in horror from the thought of life in the vast flatlands of Kansas, just as a worker transferring from Florida will be to say the least challenged by the very different climate of northern Montana. Reaction to different environments, however, is a far more subtle and complex topic than such examples suggest, and in this paper I should like to discuss environmental space in terms of three related aspects of perception, interpretation, and adaptation — what we see, what it means to us, and how we react to it. Given the range of environments around the earth to which humans have adapted themselves, it is little wonder that responses to these habitats, both physical and psychological, vary correspondingly. Arctic dwellers can differentiate between many types and conditions of snow and ice indistinguishable to an outsider, and can navigate confidently across huge swathes of apparently uniform whiteness, seemingly devoid of landmark or feature. The Simpson desert of central Australia, to visitors one

Richard Harris is a tenured professor in the Faculty of Management at Chukyo University, Japan, where he has lived for over 25 years. He teaches intercultural communication in Japanese at the undergraduate and graduate levels. He is the author of Paradise: A Cultural Guide, a study of cross-cultural concepts of the ideal. Fall 2008

of the most inhospitably barren places on the surface of the earth, has been a comfortable, fecund home for its Aboriginal inhabitants for centuries. Since there seem to be no significant biological variations among humans from different habitats, it is clear that different societies have developed environmentally appropriate ways of perceiving the world around them. People are educated by their cultures, that is, to pay attention to selected aspects of the sensory field. The phenomenon of habituation, in which perception holds the background environment constant, is a familiar example of this selective attention. City dwellers learn to ‘tune out’ the constant hum (or roar) of traffic; office workers are not conscious of the buzz of air conditioners or the tapping of keyboards; country people sleep happily through the chatter of birds and insects or the noise of a river. The corollary to habituation is what has been termed inattentional blindness. The neurologist Robert Burton has described taking part in an experiment consisting of watching a thirty-second video of two basketball teams, where the task was to count the number of passes made by one team. Intent on the task, none of the assembled psychologists noticed a figure in a gorilla suit who walked into the centre of the court, thumped its chest, and walked off — a total appearance of some nine seconds. On a second viewing, having been told of its existence, the gorilla was embarrassingly obvious to the participants, but the point had been powerfully made: they focused on and saw only what they were expecting to see, just as our cultural backgrounds predispose us to see some things and ignore others. Many managers can probably recall, in reprimanding a worker, using the phrase, “How could you not see that?” The gorilla video suggests one reason why not. An intriguing study on cultural differences in perception was conducted in the 1960s and has led to what is known as the carpentered world hypothesis. Subjects from fifteen different countries were shown a series of geometric figures that most Westerners perceive as optical illusions, such as the Müller-Lyer diagram, in which

Environmental Space… two vertical lines of identical length terminate in either outward-angled or inward-angled chevrons, causing the ‘enclosed’ line to appear shorter. Strikingly, subjects from Western cultures, in which straight lines and right angles are common in the built (carpentered) environment, were far more susceptible to such illusions, “presumably,” suggests Paul Ehrlich, “because it [the ‘shorter’ line] is interpreted as the corner of a building coming toward the observer.” Subjects from non-carpentered environments were less likely to make such associations and thus correctly perceived the lines as having the same length. An even more dramatic illustration of cultural difference in perception is the story told by the anthropologist Colin Turnbull, who worked with the Mbuti pigmies of central Africa. Turnbull and his companion Kenge had travelled to the open grassland of a national park, where Kenge was unable to recognise a herd of buffalo at a distance, asking Turnbull what insects they were. This man, whose eyesight was superbly adapted to the gloom of his circumscribed rain forest home, and who was very familiar with buffalo, had never needed to develop the understanding that size appears to diminish considerably over long distances. A similar phenomenon is found in cultures unused to two-dimensional representation, where elements of a photograph or picture are perceived as all being in the same plane, with no allowance made for depth perspective — in fact a visual convention of relatively recent vintage in the developed world. The point underlying the above examples is the oftenoverlooked one that many human perceptual abilities are not hard wired into the brain, but are developed cultural reactions to specific environments. What we tend to assume to be the one correct way of viewing a situation may justifiably be seen completely differently by a member of another culture who is paying attention to an alternative selection of elements of the visual environment. The idea that the world ‘out there’ is an undifferentiated mass of initially meaningless information that has to be sorted into relevant, culturally determined categories within the mind is known as social constructionism.

In its more extreme versions, the reality of the external world is denied altogether, but it is not necessary to adopt such a stance to acknowledge that the meaning of what is perceived is shaped principally by social agreement on what is important. From this it is clear that what may be common sense from one cultural perspective may be entirely alien from another; that is, even when there is agreement on what is perceived in a visual sense, the meanings attached to that perceived scene, the interpretation, will vary considerably. In an essay illustrating this point, D.W. Meinig has suggested ten possible responses to a given landscape. While Meinig’s list is necessarily incomplete, it is a good introduction to the range of reactions possible, summarised as follows. Some viewers will see landscape as nature, compared to which the works of humans are paltry and ephemeral; such an attitude is essentially a Romantic one, and has been a major influence on the contemporary environmentalist movement. Distinct from this is the view of landscape as habitat, a visible history of human interaction with nature: the domestication of the earth. This is the spirit informing the writings of J.B. Jackson, perhaps the most influential reader and interpreter of the U.S. landscape over the last 100 years. As human technocratic ability has increased, however, adaptation to nature has given way to fundamental alteration, such that the entire earth has been permanently affected by human activity: landscape as artefact. Not from utilitarian motives, but rather from intense intellectual or scientific curiosity, some onlookers will perceive landscape as system, its visible features indicators of an immense, complex web of relationships — natural, social, economic. Others will observe the same scene and see signs of landscape as problem, an undesirable situation requiring correction — a common attitude among environmentalists and social reformers. For many, the interpretation of the scene will be the appraising one of landscape as wealth. Features will be assigned value, for their potential as resources or development prospects. Philosophical observers may reflect on landscape as ideology, seeing in a given scene indications of the values that helped create it, while those of more concrete interests may see landscape as history,

Intercultural Management Quarterly

comprehending the physical stages through which the scene has passed to reach its present appearance. Connected to this attitude, though with a somewhat different emphasis, is the notion of landscape as place, in which the specific, uniquely local aspects of a scene are analysed and appreciated. Meinig’s final concept is that of landscape as aesthetic, in which a scene is appreciated for its formal elements of beauty. Clearly the above list is not comprehensive (the spiritual interpretation of landscape is not addressed, for instance), and it suffers from the defect of all such taxonomies (not excluding the one guiding this series of articles!) in that the terms are essentially arbitrary and overlapping. Nevertheless, Meinig’s essay serves as a useful reminder of the number of ways in which the same scene or situation can be interpreted; the problem for managers remains in trying to uncover and resolve these potentially divisive differences.

approaches among the observers, but also acts as a valuable collaborative exercise in sharing knowledge among the group. Finally, people express their affective reactions to the situation, explaining why they like or dislike it. For some, positive or negative reactions may be personal, while for others they may be cultural, elements of the scene perhaps possessing symbolic meaning within a certain cultural context. Generally an enjoyable, nonthreatening activity, the D.I.E. is a very effective way to gain information and insight regarding perceptual and interpretive differences within a group.

The question of reaction or adaptation to cultural difference in environmental perception is an important one. In the developed world most people live and work in a heavily mediated environment, artificially insulated from the direct effects of weather, darkness, natural smells and noise. People from different cultural backgrounds may experience these conditions as a kind of sensory deprivation, feeling cut off from the ‘real’ Even For some, positive or negative reactions may be personal, while world. in developed for others they may be cultural, elements of the scene perhaps Japan, houses possessing symbolic meaning within a certain cultural context. have traditionally been built One powerful and easily-applied tool for investigating without central air conditioning, people preferring to differences in perception and meaning is the D.I.E. ap- cool the rooms by opening windows to create through proach, in which participants are invited to successive- draughts; in the winter they wear extra clothes and sit ly Describe, Interpret and Evaluate the same scene. In closer to the heat source — previously an open hearth, the first phase people are asked to describe a picture in nowadays more often a space heater. Should houses and as much factual detail as possible, the process yielding towns be laid out with regard to the natural contours of crucial information as to what they notice and the order the land, or should the land be forced to conform to a in which they perceive such elements. Language is ex- paper design, as in the grid-based planning of much of posed as the ambiguous communication tool that it is, the United States? Such differences in expectation are leading to discussions on definition and assumption: is further complicated by cultural attitudes toward envithat object a mountain or a hill? Is that figure a woman ronmental protection, a recent survey in Canada findor a girl or a child or a person? It is also noteworthy ing unexpectedly significant differences between French how often value judgments are used in what should be Canadians and Anglos in this regard, the former being affectless narrative, terms such as ‘barren’ or ‘beautiful’ more reluctant to make sacrifices in comfort or economemployed as though they were objective descriptors. In ics for environmental reasons. the second phase, participants explain or comment on Finally, mention must be made of the contentious thethe scene, using their own knowledge and experience to draw inferences about the objects or activities portrayed. ory of environmental (or climatic) determinism. DrawThis stage of the process not only exposes the different ing on statistics that seem to show that the economic

Fall 2008

Environmental Space… development of a country generally corresponds to its distance from the equator, the pernicious argument has been made that people from these temperate latitudes are naturally more hardworking, productive and intelligent than their counterparts in the tropics. Such is the intuitive appeal of this idea that prejudicial stereotypes can even be found within the same country, the industrious, ingenious Yankee being compared favourably to the indolent Southerner, workers in the north of Italy and Germany holding derogatory opinions of their compatriots in the south. In the southern hemisphere the same attitudes are found in the reverse direction, enterprising Australians from Melbourne tending to hold a dim view of the work ethic of Queenslanders, for instance. The apparent counter example of successful yet tropical Singapore is explained by its population being 80% Chinese, originally from more temperate latitudes. This ‘equatorial effect’ is almost certainly a historical accident, in many cases a result of the distorting influence on development of European colonialism. A further persuasive explanation has been offered by Jared Diamond, who argues that the physical geography of the Eurasian landmass facilitated development, along with that area’s disproportionate number of domesticable animals and crop species. Unfortunately though, proximity to the equator has too often been interpreted as a climatic determinant of character, producing people who are happy to lie in the sun plucking fruit from trees without the effort of cultivating them. It is therefore natural and right that the peoples of the northern latitudes have come to dominate the world economically and politically. Such attitudes, often unconscious but tellingly embodied in racist jokes and stereotypes, only impede understanding and communication, and managers need to be highly sensitive to the existence of these damaging patterns. Open dialogue, mutual respect, and accurate information are essential.

In the present age, when the environment has become an issue of vital and immediate concern to humanity as a whole, it is more important than ever for people to consider how assumptions of similarity in environmental

perception and interpretation may be disastrously misleading. We may occupy the same viewpoint, looking in the same direction, but our sensory and emotional experiences will differ considerably. These differences will stem in part from personal associations, but more influentially from culturally constructed ways of seeing, which are far harder to recognise and negotiate. It is essential to bear in mind that no single one of these perceptual modes is any more correct than any other, and that by exploring them in a spirit of curiosity and respect, we can not only reduce the potential for misunderstanding, but enlarge and enrich our own appreciation of the world around us. i

References and Further Reading Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Burton, R. A. (2008). On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York, NY: W. W. Norton& Company. Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (2008). The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Groth, P., & Bressi, T. W. (Eds.). (1997). Understanding Ordinary Landscapes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Meinig, D. W. (Ed.). (1979). The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays. New York, NY: Oxford University press. Shepheard, P. (1997). The Cultivated Wilderness: What is Landscape? Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Or,

Simmons, I. G. (1997). Humanity and Environment: A Cultural Ecology. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Intercultural Management Quarterly

Japan and the U.S. in the Workplace by Motoo Unno

Amae

t is critical for Japanese and American managers to understand the values, beliefs, and thought patterns of both countries’ people to create the conditions for meaningful and productive collaboration. The concept of amae is an element of Japanese culture that not only Americans would do well to understand; Japanese managers, team leaders, and businesspeople would undoubtedly beneﬁt from studying its particulars as well. The Japanese psychiatrist Takeo Doi published his book, Amae no Kozo, “the structure of amae,” 37 years ago. He coined this word, amae, from the verb amaeru: the word roughly translates to “dependency.” The relationship between parents and their infants is amae. Parents take care of and protect their infants. Infants depend on their parents, and behave self-centeredly. What is interesting about amae is that it is a reciprocal relationship and involves deep, interdependent emotional ties. In child-rearing practices in the Western society, this relationship stops at a relatively early point when compared with the Japanese. The amae mentality continues well into adulthood in the Japanese society, and it is easy to see amae relationships in Japanese organizations. For example, the relationship between a boss and his subordinate is amae. The boss takes care of and protects his subordinate. In return, the subordinate shows loyalty to his or her boss. Thus amae, in a more abstract sense, is a relationship between a person who has power, status and inﬂuence, and a person who does not have these things.

Dr. Motoo Unno is a visiting scholar at the School of International Service at American University. He is the newest addition to the IMI team, as well as a full professor at Meiji University’s School of Political Science and Economies in Tokyo, Japan. In addition to his professorial duties, Dr, Unno travels extensively to deliver lectures on intercultural communication.

Fall 2008

Another example of amae can be seen in the relationship between a team leader and the members of a Japanese team. A team leader cares for and protects the other team members. These team members that are being protected feel that they have on to the leader. The concept of on carries with it the ideas of indebtedness, burden or load. To use myself as an example: I wanted to become a visiting scholar at American University. There were, however, no ties between my home university, Meiji University, and American University. This posed some problems, but Professor Gary Weaver agreed to the arrangement. Gary did something meaningful for me. So, I have on to him. I became a member of his team, and in a Japanese team, the team members cooperate with each other on behalf of the leader to repay his or her kindness. Amae can also be seen in the relationship between a Japanese company and its employees. In this case, employees show loyalty to their company. The company provides an age-related promotion system and lifetime employment. The Japanese employees are promoted based on seniority. Generally speaking, they are employed until retirement and tend to spend their entire career in one company. Although this situation is changing, working for one company for life is still a primary workplace virtue in Japan. After Japan’s economic bubble burst in the 1990’s, some Japanese companies could not maintain this traditional age-related promotion system with lifetime employment. These companies introduced a new employee evaluation system that instead focused on employees’ performance and results. In this new evaluation system, Japanese employees are asked to what degree they have achieved their goals, and a greater emphasis is placed on what kind of results they get. This evaluation structure should sound familiar to American business people; it is a new phenomenon in Japan. It’s also a major challenge for Japanese business people who are used to being evaluated according to teamwork, harmony, and loyalty.

Japan and the U.S. … In my opinion, introducing this new system was a mistake because it eliminated amae in companies, an element that played a critical role in establishing the relationships between teams and leaders. In the old evaluation system, Japanese managers who took care of their subordinates were highly evaluated over those who only “got results.” In the old system, subordinates who showed strong teamwork skills and loyalty, and felt indebtedness to their managers, were evaluated on those elements rather than on outcomes only. The old evaluation system contained amae, which is a relationship-oriented rather than results-oriented system. Japanese companies that introduced the new evaluation system did not recognize how much amae had inﬂuenced organizational cultures. The new evaluation system destroyed teamwork and collaboration in companies. Now, Japanese companies that implemented the new goal-oriented system have begun to review and recognize the beneﬁts of the old one, and are trying to integrate the strengths of both systems.

a boss was no longer as important as it used be: the boss could be transferred to another company tomorrow. As a result, the level of loyalty to a boss and a company has decreased signiﬁcantly. Amae cannot function in these conditions. Second, young Japanese whose fathers became victims of restructuring and downsizing conclude that loyalty to a company and hard work may not guarantee survival in the company. Third, some young Japanese are reluctant to get a fulltime job, and have chosen instead to seek part-time employment after graduation. Others do not work at all, choosing to live at home with parents. These young Japanese, aged 15 to 34, are called “freeters” in Japan, a combination of the English “free” and the German arbeiter, or “worker.” According to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in Japan, the number of “freeters” was 620,000 in 1991, 2.17 million in 2003 and 2.01 million in 2005. Were I to simply focus on their dependency,

During and after the hardships of restructuring, Japanese employees learned that showing loyalty to a boss was no longer as important as it used to be: the boss could be transferred to another company tomorrow.

The Loss of Amae

As we have seen, amae is everywhere in Japanese society. This traditional relationship system, however, has been compromised in the following major ways:

self-indulgence, and unwillingness to be separated from their parents, I would say that a “freeter” has an amae mentality. But these “freeters,” who often move quickly from part-time job to part-time job, do not display company loyalty, and often have a weak sense of on.

First, some Japanese companies have not been able to maintain a lifetime employment system after Japan’s economic bubble burst in the early half of the 1990’s. In order to adjust to the post-bubble economy, major Japanese companies restructured and downsized, transferring their employees to their subsidiaries and to related companies, and scaling back on new hires. The psychological eﬀects have been massive to Japanese employees. During and after the hardships of restructuring and downsizing, Japanese employees learned that showing loyalty to

It is still the case in Japanese companies that the current senior and middle managers were educated by older generations, and as a result share similar values of loyalty and on, as well as a common understanding of amae. I am in my forties, and I deﬁne myself as part of this “amae generation.” In today’s Japanese companies, however, the values of loyalty and on have been diminished. Japanese senior and middle managers often say that some young Japanese are on shirazu—they do not feel indebtedness, burden or load. On the other hand, young Japa-

Intercultural Management Quarterly

nese employees often say: “What is on? What is amae? I will do it my way.”

Conflict Resolution Amae is a big factor when Japanese businesspeople handle conflicts. To explain the approach of the amae generation to conflict resolution, I will utilize the Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument, which gives five conflict-handling modes: collaborating, avoiding, competing, accommodating and compromising. Thomas mentioned in his book Intrinsic Motivation at Work that collaborating is a win-win mode because both sides try to find an integrative solution, attempting to satisfy their own concerns as well as the concerns of others. When conflict happens, both sides are assertive and cooperative. On the other hand, avoiding is a lose-lose mode because both sides avoid their concerns. Thomas also argued that competing, accommodating and compromising are win-lose modes. In a competing mode, one side attempts to satisfy only its own concerns. In contrast, in an accommodating mode, one side sacrifices its own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other side. How about a compromising mode? In this mode, both sides partially sacrifice their concerns. As a result, they get less than they actually wanted. When I see this conflict-handling mode through a Western lens, these analyses seem fine for a culture like America’s. However, if I use a Japanese lens, I see a different result. When conflicts occur, the older Japanese generations, the perfect amae generations, tend to use an avoiding mode, considering both sides’ concerns. They think that assertiveness is not an effective strategy and that time could solve the conflicts. Thus, for them, avoiding is a win-win mode. This amae generation also prefers accommodating when conflicts happen. They are more likely to sacrifice their concerns to satisfy those of the other person, thus maintaining the relationship. They continue to commit

Fall 2008

their loyalty to, and have on to, another person. They think that accommodating is a good strategy because in the long run it will satisfy both concerns. Thus, they see accommodating as a win-win mode. Japanese amae generations often say “otosi dokoro wo saguru” to satisfy both concerns. This means to look for where, when, and how they compromise. They believe that both sides should sacrifice in order to achieve a winwin relationship. Collaborating, lastly, is absolutely a win-win mode for conflict resolution in Japanese society. Thus, avoiding, accommodating, compromising and collaborating are win-win modes for Japanese in the amae generation. Japanese managers tend to think that discussion and assertiveness at a meeting could cause loss of face for some participants. When they have to make a decision, they use nemawashi, which is a way of building consensus before making a decision. Nemawashi originally meant trimming all but the main roots of a tree to foster root development before transplanting. Those directly or indirectly involved in decision-making issues are consulted before the idea is subjected to official judgment. In many cases, the decision is often made before a meeting. The purpose of the meeting, then, is to keep harmony by sharing information, avoiding conflict in public and approving a decision. As a result, no one loses face, and harmony is kept.

Practical Application Now that you have some information about Japanese values, beliefs, and thought patterns, here are some suggestions about how to collaborate and work with Japanese eﬀectively. First, establish an amae relationship with your Japanese boss, subordinates or team members. This can be an incredibly eﬀective strategy. Do something meaningful for them. They will feel that they have on to you, and welcome the amae relationship. Second, use feedback to help establish the relationship. Western researchers have

Japan and the U.S. … investigated the relationship between collectivists and feedback-seeking behavior. They concluded that collectivists tend to seek feedback because they want to avoid uncertain situations. Their research focuses on feedbackseeking behavior and uncertainty avoidance in collectivistic societies. Japanese managers, however, tend to seek feedback to establish amae relationships with subordinates. The point of this behavior is not merely to acquire information or avoid uncertain situations. Western researchers are missing this point. In Japan, seeking feedback is useful to establish amae relationships. Third, share credit with your Japanese boss, peers or team members. Japanese tend to emphasize team achievements rather than individual ones. For example, an American employee working for a major Japanese trading company in Tokyo found that in his section, nobody had created a negotiation strategy. So, he designed the strategy himself, but gave the credit to his Japanese boss, peers, and team members. Not only did they see him as a team player, but they also felt that they had on to him. Thus he was successfully able to create an amae relationship. Fourth, use face in an effective way. The American employee from the previous example, through his skillful relationship building, increased the sense of face for his boss, peers, and team. Fifth, create space to reflect before making premature judgments or speaking out. In other words, look before you leap—avoid a “ready, fire, aim” approach. To create a successful collaborative organizational culture is challenging. Let me illustrate first a case of failure in this regard, followed by an example of how to do it correctly.

A Japanese manager working for the auto parts industry asked an American employee,

The Japanese manager was pleased with the American’s can-do attitude, and assumed that the employee understood his order. But the employee did not perform the task, and argued that the Japanese manager was just asking whether or not he had the ability to do the job. He did not interpret the Japanese manager’s words as an order. Knowing this, the Japanese manager scolded the American employee in front of other employees. In Japan, this would have been acceptable behavior for a manager. Because of strong loyalty and a sense of belongingness to a company, a scolded employee seldom quits his job or asks to move to another section in the organization. After this incident, however, the American employee requested a transfer to a different section, and never spoke to the Japanese manager again. Now the good news: When Honda went to Ohio, one of the agenda items was how to make American workers wear Honda’s uniform. According to a former HR director at Honda, the company emphasized equality throughout the workforce, and did not use the terms “employer” and “employee.” Instead, Honda called all its employees “associates” in an effort to create a team-oriented culture. In fact, the CEO of Honda U.S. wore the same uniform as the American workers. Honda also justified quality improvements and persuaded employees by using concrete examples. For example, the company said that wearing a belt buckle or having jewelry could scratch a car after painting and decrease the quality of the finished product, rather than issuing an unjustified rule.

In conclusion, there are several strategies to collaborate and work with Japanese eﬀectively. While there is no easy solution that will bring success in all cases, it is clear that the understanding and skillful use of amae can only bring positive results when dealing with the challenges of Japanese business and organizational culture. i

“Can you do this?” The employee said: “Yes, I can.”

Intercultural Management Quarterly

Videoconferencing toward Deliberative International Discussion* by Ibrahim Saleh, Roberta Fiske-Rusciano, and Frank Louis Rusciano

his project was based on providing college students at an Egyptian and an American university with an opportunity to engage in discussions about specific international topics through videoconferencing. The idea behind the program is to entice the Egyptian youth as well as their peers in different countries in the world to understand the different options and become involved in the current situation. This philosophy attempts to generate cross-cultural dialogue at the grass roots level—to get students to confront their problems and reconsider their predetermined ideas. This project goes beyond simple discourse, and helps develop communication skills, especially with regard to conflict management. The focus of its curriculum is an exploration of tolerance and intolerance. It galvanizes teenagers in different countries to pursue an understanding of the present situation, which is characterized by intolerance, growing hatred, and extremism—and the reasons behind it—through vivid communication scenarios. For the project, our two schools—The American University in Cairo and Rider University—teamed up. This particular partnership was guided by several considerations. First, AUC provides a diverse group of students from different parts of the Arab world who are fluent in English (most of our Global and Multinational students are fluent in another language, but there is no one language they share). Second, AUC is a first-rate university with many resources and possibilities for collaborative

ventures, and they are very eager to be our partner in a sustained dialogue. Third, there are many misconceptions about the Arab world in the United States, especially since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Students were taught to view their participation not only as an intellectual exercise, but as part of an ongoing dialogue for peace. Contact between students in the United States and students from various Arab countries might work to ease some of the misconceptions that exist on both sides. The discussions revolved around three problems facing the United States and Arab countries. These problems included whether it is possible to improve relations between Arab nations and the United States, what Arab nations and the United States should do about the problem of international terrorism, and the possible ways to lessen the economic gaps between rich and poor countries. For each issue, students at Rider University and the American University in Cairo received materials beforehand that had three purposes: to supplement their knowledge of the other country, to introduce the general themes to be discussed in the conferences, and to introduce some general methods of problem-solving and conﬂict resolution. The students then spent approximately three weeks discussing the problem and the possible solutions, and advancing possible solutions of their own. For the research and evaluation portion of this project, a series of surveys were administered to the students.

*This article is adapted from Dr. Ibrahim Saleh’s book Prior to the Eruption of the Grapes of Wrath in the Middle East, Teeba Corporation, 2006.

Ibrahim Saleh is an Assistant Professor in the Journalism and Mass Communication Department at the American Univeristy in Cairo. He is also the Director of the AUC Connect Project. Roberta Fiske-Rusciano is an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the School of Political Science at Rider University, and is the co-author of Experiencing Race, Class and Gender in the United States (2005). Frank Louis Rusciano is Professor and Chair of Political Science at Rider University. He is a three-time Alexander von Humboldt Fellow, a former Guest Professor at the University of Mainz, and a participant in the Oxford Round Table in the United Kingdom.

Fall 2008

Videoconferencing… The first survey was filled out before the videoconferencing began to test the initial pre-conceptions that students on both sides have about the people and the country with which they will be interacting. For the next issue area, a questionnaire was administered during the videoconferencing, to compare students’ attitudes, and test the extent to which they agreed upon possible solutions. Finally, the initial questionnaire regarding perceptions of the other students and their country was re-administered, to test for any changes over the 12-week period. These results were compared for both groups of students, with three purposes in mind. First, the project endeavored to test whether attitudes did change significantly after students engaged in a deliberative dialogue. Second, the project attempted to assess the pedagogical value of the students’ interactions. Finally, the responses were analyzed to test whether any of the goals we set for the conferences were met, and if so, which ones. To aid in the latter evaluation, students were required to write a paper at the end of the discussions describing what they received from the experience, and what they learned that they had not known before. A primary objective of these evaluations, besides describing the experience and changes in perspectives gained by students over the twelve weeks, was to test whether it is useful to pursue similar projects as a means of promoting global understanding in other university programs around the world.

Results of the Pre-Conference Questionnaires: Comparing Rider and AUC Student Responses The ﬁrst questionnaire dealt with the impressions students on both sides had of the other country, their relations with each other, and their attitudes on issues that had the potential to divide them. In the pre-conference questionnaires, we discovered the following results. AUC students were more likely than Rider students to describe relations between the governments of the United States and the Arab nations as “generally friendly.” By contrast, Rider students were more likely than AUC students to agree that “Peaceful and mutually beneﬁcial relations between the United States and Arab nations are achievable in the near future.”

These results appear at first glance to be contradictory. If AUC students felt that relations between the governments of these nations were friendly now, why were they less likely to believe such friendship would continue into the future? Similarly, if the Rider students felt that peaceful relations were possible in the future, why were they less likely to perceive these relations as friendly now? A likely explanation lies in the two questions’ use of “government” versus “nation.” AUC students were almost equally likely to say that relations between the governments of the US and Arab nations, and the people of the US and Arab nations, were friendly, with 50% giving the former response, and 42.9% giving the latter response. By contrast, only 9.1% of Rider students said that relations between the governments of the US and Arab nations were friendly, compared with 45.5% who said relations between the people of the US and Arab nations were friendly. The prevailing political climate in the United States provides a possible reason why Rider students were more likely to believe US and Arab governments had unfriendly relationships, while their peoples had friendly relationships. The dominant message in the Spring of 2005 from Rider political leaders was still that the United States was attempting to “liberate” regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq from despotic rule. Once “the people” of these nations were liberated, and democratic governments were established, these nations would be grateful and on friendly terms with the US. (Recall that Bush administration officials predicted that the Iraqis would greet American forces with flowers, a sentiment restated in other terms even as the insurgency grew). Indeed, even though most Rider participants did not support the war in Iraq, they still echoed the idea—prior to the video-conferences— that Middle Eastern governments would reform and that our relations with these nations would be better in the future as a result. The AUC students had the opposite perspective. They often stated that because the United States was a democratic society, the present American leaders represented the will of their people. Most expressed an animosity towards the current administration; they were willing to

Intercultural Management Quarterly

dismiss the 2000 election as a ﬂuke, but they felt that the 2004 election results reﬂected a new attitude towards their nations. As one female AUC student summarized her reasons for pessimism regarding future US-Arab relations:

Another significant difference between the Rider and AUC students concerned the role of religion in politics. AUC students were more likely than their Rider counterparts to agree that “Religious leaders should have more influence in politics than they presently do.”

[One female Rider student] said that 48% of Americans didn’t vote for Bush. There is a tone of helplessness [when you speak of this administration]. We [Middle Easterners] used to have a distinction... we liked Americans but not the government. Now we are disappointed. I don’t know, you keep re-electing the same person. I have mixed feelings.

This finding is not surprising, given the separation of church and state that has been part of the American tradition, in contrast to certain Islamic states, like Iran, which established theocracies in part as a barrier to Western influences. The AUC students were likely to have taken this position not only because of their religious beliefs, but because they see it as a legitimate authority in everyday life. They were also very aware of the secular tradition in politics associated “Women took a lot of their ideas about their rights with the West, and would like to assert their separateness and from the West. How do we appear in your media?” independence from the sphere of Western influence. Another female AUC student expressed the opinion that fear was the basis of problems between US and Arab This does not mean, however, that the students neccountries: essarily embraced the idea of an overbearing theocracy, especially regarding the role of women. There was virtuFEMALE AUC STUDENT: I think the fear factor is ally no difference in Rider or AUC student responses to very important—this card is not only played [by] the the question of whether women should have the same US, but in the Arab world, because America convinced rights as men: 100% of the former and 96.4% of the latthe Arabs that they are not capable of solving their own ter agreed with this statement. problems... this is a lesson in liberty. As the following excerpts from the discussion about the [The student then directed a question towards a Rid- veiling of women illustrates, the AUC students consider student who was an American citizen of AUC back- ered that allowing women this choice was an important ground]: I think you must be very conflicted being AUC part of their identities, not a symbol of oppression: in the US. FIRST FEMALE AUC STUDENT: Women took a FEMALE RIDER STUDENT: When 9/11 hap- lot of their ideas about their rights from the West. How pened... my brother and I received hate vibes in our high do we appear in your media? school... I felt very confused and disconnected from my Arabic roots. FEMALE RIDER STUDENT: Our media do not portray Middle-Eastern women at all... In her dual identity as an American of Egyptian background, this student illustrates the conflict between perSECOND FEMALE AUC STUDENT: Arab women sonal identity and relations, and those of governments, are invisible [in the Western media], stereotyped big particularly for Americans after 9/11. time. People from the West expect too little from Arab women. Many Arab women have influenced their societies.

Fall 2008

Videoconferencing… FEMALE RIDER STUDENT: One of the selling points given to us to go forward with the war [in Iraq] is that we have to liberate the women. If that’s not true, that’s difficult to think about. It’s too troubling for most people. THIRD FEMALE AUC STUDENT: Many Middle Eastern women choose to veil and to stay at home and care for children. This is a choice. FOURTH FEMALE AUC STUDENT: Globalization tends to connect Islam with oppression of women. It’s not true. People misuse it and the media does, too. Does the media want to tell the truth or keep the propaganda war going? FIFTH FEMALE AUC STUDENT: Choosing to wear the veil or not is the biggest freedom we have. The AUC students also argued the Islamic countries that did not extend rights to women were acting from political, not religious, motives: MALE AUC STUDENT: Saudi Arabia, in particular, is a seriously dysfunctional society. Women are oppressed... Arab society is flawed to a certain extent. FOURTH FEMALE AUC STUDENT: It’s not religion-oriented; it’s related to the political system. Yet, the AUC students still felt that Islam must be considered as a factor in any attempt to build democracy in the Arab states, and here, they once again questioned the United States’ motives and actions, and their effects upon future relations: FEMALE AUC STUDENT: Religion is a very important factor in the Middle East, especially Islam. Any suggested model of democracy must encompass Islam. The majority of people in the [Arab] streets would want a democracy encompassing Islam. SECOND FEMALE AUC STUDENT: The whole thing about the [Iraq] war was teaching us a lesson about democracy; we apparently don’t know about democracy,

and we do not now, so America has failed... If we are to be “civilized” we must be treated in a civilized manner... Optimism will never find its place in the Arab/US relations unless Americans show their good intentions... But Americans have shown their intentions are not really for democracy or for peace. The pre-conference responses do not just reveal differences in opinions about particular issues between the Rider and AUC students. They also reveal an obvious difference in perspective when it comes to interpreting potential conflicts and the reactions of the people in their different nations. These differences figured strongly in the discussions about terrorism.

Results of the Post-Conference Questionnaire: Comparing Rider and AUC Student Responses on Pre-Conference and Post-Conference Responses Given the intensity and extent of disagreement on the general and specific aspects of terrorism, one might assume that the two groups of students were unlikely to move their positions as a result of the videoconferencing. However, the students did move closer to each other’s positions in important and fundamental ways. This movement not only involved specific issues, but, more importantly, dealt with general questions about the effects of non-governmental interactions on the relationships between citizens of the US and the Arab nations. The movement described occurred on many different levels, as the results below indicate. AUC students had a clearer view of the United States after the conferences than before; similarly, Rider students had a clearer view of the Middle East after the conferences than before. This question asked in both cases how clear an impression students had of the other country; it may seem unsurprising that both sides would be more likely to have clearer impressions after twelve weeks of videoconferencing. It is typically stated, however, that Arab citizens have a clearer impression of the United States than

Intercultural Management Quarterly

American citizens have of them. That was not the case in our pre-conference results; as such, the post-conference results indicate a learning process occurring on both sides. Rider students were more likely to agree after the conferences than before that “The major divisions between the people of the United States and the people of the Arab nations can be traced to the United States’ policy towards Israel and the Palestinians. The discussions of terrorism and the supposed “double standard” by which the United States judged violent actions by Israel and the Palestinians sensitized Rider students to the importance of this conﬂict for the AUC students. One of the AUC students stated as much directly in the web discussion of April 18, 2005, after the end of the videoconferencing: AUC STUDENT: I think the Arab-US relations will not improve unless both [sides] sit together and discuss the diﬀerent policies that appeal to them both. I also think that the superior-inferior feeling that the US has has to be changed because I do not think that there is

Fall 2008

such a thing called “superior” or “inferior.” Finally, I think that the US has to abandon its double standards concerning the Arab-Israeli conﬂict. Through the program, both Rider and AUC students learned the importance of non-governmental relations in sustaining a dialogue between peoples whose governments often sought to remain separate. One AUC student stated, “it seems as though our governments keep us apart. Peace is too important to be left up to the government.” AUC students asserted that forming relations with others on the popular level is necessary. Even though in many ways the encounters between potential antagonists through videoconferencing may not match the intimacy of face-to-face meetings, the sustained and regular sessions of online communication over several weeks, which can be practiced with considerably low expense and eﬀort, can realize some of the goals of the in-person meetings. While not a cure-all, it nevertheless promotes dialogue, and is a step on the march towards peace. i

Egg Shells… Continued from page 7 With other white men, they were most concerned about ego issues and competition. “Letting other men know you have any kind of vulnerability could give them an advantage that I am not willing to give—especially when we know we are in competition for resources and promotions.” With men of color, white men most feared being perceived as prejudiced or racist. One participant was particularly clear about this: “I know that having really candid discussions, given our history, will require development of trust ﬁrst. Building trust takes time and, frankly, I am concerned about the career implications of taking too much time to get to real conversations.”

Commonalities Participants expressed many common fears or concerns, in addition to their diﬀerences. The commonalities can be viewed through three lenses: culturally-learned diﬀerences, personal history, and organizational or environmental factors, as illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2: Fears and concerns through the lenses of three factors

Culturally-learned Style Differences that Complicate Interaction

Personal History

Organizational and Environmental Factors

Communication styles

Misperceived or labeled by others (e.g., sexist, racist, playing the race card)

Attempts to raise difﬁcult issues punished by the organization

Conﬂict styles

Betrayed by a trusted other

Legal concerns about litigation if misperceived

Assumptions that disagreements will occur and destroy friendships

Being ridiculed or chastised for asking questions; lack of information resulting from segregation or lack of experience Offending or being offended

Fast paced, results-driven environments with no reward for spending time on authentic dialogue or to build relationships Avoidance of conﬂict as part of organizational culture

Competing for jobs, promotions or recognition

Belief that these topics are not appropriate to the workplace

Being the target of sexual allegations

Competitive environments where conversations have winners/losers—and negative career impacts, especially if the dialogue is with a superior Organizational instability and fear that info will be used in downsizing or merger decisions.

Excluded from professional opportunities

The article will continue in the next issue of IMQ ... 24

Intercultural Management Quarterly

Across the Cultural Divide Review by Dania Straughan

The Invisible Border: Latinos in America by Samuel Roll, Ph.D., and Marc Irwin, Ph.D. Intercultural Press, 2008, 152pp., $24.95

he Latino population in the United States was estimated at over 40 million by the 2006 US Census, and it is growing rapidly. Many Latinos have lived within the United States since the US gained more than four present-day states after the 1848 Mexican-American war, since the annexation of Puerto Rico, and since the Cuban emigration out of Castro’s Cuba. But it is the recent flood of Latino immigrants to new places in unprecedented numbers that has caused concern among the mainstream US population, and a fierce immigration debate. The Invisible Border seeks to address the intercultural uncertainties between the dominant US “Anglo” population and the minority Latino population in America. Comparing Latino and Anglo cultural development from childhood to adulthood, authors Samuel Roll and Marc Irwin explore the roots of mainstream Latino and Anglo behaviors and the effects of cultural differences on Latino-Anglo interaction in schools, in the economy, in politics, and in relationships. The book is largely geared towards Anglos who interact or work with Latinos, offering specific advice to Anglo employers, businesses, teachers, and politicians. As Anglo culture and practices are also explored, this text is additionally a useful guide for Latin Americans. The Invisible Border is not a reference book or an academic study, but rather an accessible, short, and clear comparison of Anglo and Latino culture, packed with captivating anecdotes. As authors Roll and Irwin point out, Latinos and Anglos live by often opposing values and behaviors. Such deeply rooted cultural differences spawn fear and prejudice when they are misunderstood. Yet culturally based

Dania Straughan is an intern at the Intercultural Management Institute, & a Junior majoring in international studies in the School of International Service at American University.

Fall 2008

differences, the authors continue, cannot be characterized as “good” or “bad.” Each culture predisposes people to act and believe in ways that make them successful in their society. In Latino culture, for example, the tightly interdependent family is prized as a mark of successful parentage, while in Anglo culture, independent and selfsufficient children indicate parenting success. Without conscious understanding of cultural differences, each culture is likely to grossly misinterpret the actions of the other. In order to shed light on Latinos’ and Anglos’ divergent cultural values, Roll and Irwin begin with the family, “the principal vehicle for transferring the values and information making up a culture” (xxi). They lead the reader through a narrative of short stories exploring the important events and relationships within the family, as well as the cultural implications of each culture’s approach. They explain the role of the father, for example, opening the chapter with personal vignettes. The Latino father is “el Jefe,” “the Boss,” a formal if affectionate authority figure that socializes his children by giving advice and receiving respect. The Latino father’s position in the family reflects the hierarchical nature of family and generational boundaries in Latino society. The Anglo father, on the other hand, develops a “buddy” relationship with his son, often through sports. The nature of the Anglo father’s role reflects the more egalitarian family structure in mainstream Anglo families. After discussing how Latinos and Anglos learn culture, the authors discuss the resulting cultural differences. Perhaps one of the more contentious misunderstandings between the two cultures is gender roles. Anglos often perceive Latino women (Latinas) as submissive and oppressed by dominant Latino men, while Anglo women who assert their gender’s equality may be met with derision from Latino men. Roll and Irwin take special care to illuminate the complexity of gender roles in Latino cultures. While the expectation of gender roles may be seen as discriminatory in the United States, where there is a drive for equal treatment between the sexes, in Latin America women and men follow clearly delineated behaviors. The Latino woman is expected to be nurturing,

Cultural Divide… attractive, and display feminine decorum, while the Latino man is expected to be macho and virile, chivalrous and respectful towards women, the elderly, and those in power. The authors candidly recognize that a strong double standard exists between Latino men and women, yet Latinas in positions of authority “may in fact enjoy more power and respect than most women are able to obtain in Anglo culture” (119). Inﬁdelity by Latino husbands, for example, is tolerated, even accepted, while wives found guilty of adultery are socially ruined. If a Latina does her duty as a woman, however, by showing devotion to her family and paying attention to her appearance and etiquette, Latino men often have no problem with a female business executive or political candidate. In fact, four women have been elected president in Latin America. In terms of gender, as in many other cultural aspects, there is much more than meets the eye.

the combination of innovation, progress, interdependence, and endurance brought by the Anglo and Latino cultures. The Invisible Border: Latinos in America allows Anglos and Latinos to get into one another’s shoes, and is an excellent read for anyone curious about how to best understand the other. Not only will readers learn of the cultural values carried by the other, they are likely to learn a lot about themselves. i

The authors reveal the societal effects of cultural differences with an analysis of Latino expectations and needs in the workplace, stores, schools, and politics. Roll and Irwin offer explicit recommendations to Anglos interacting with Latinos in these contexts. Employers, for example, should note that Latinos, unlike Anglos, identify themselves through their family and not their occupation. Since Latinos place a higher value on interdependence, however, they are likely to express great loyalty and dedication to employers that take an interest in their families and demonstrate appreciation for the employee’s work (98). More broadly, the authors explain how to judge a Latino’s level of acculturation, an important step to interacting effectively. The book ended with the subject of Latino-Anglo intercultural relationships, a subject the authors understand intimately. With personal accounts and subtitles such as “Latinas Are Fine,” the chapter provided the grand finale to a particularly smooth and entertaining read. Roll and Irwin note the conflict that can occur between distinct cultures, but express optimism that because Anglo and Latino cultures are so frequently opposites, they simultaneously are complements, together striking a healthy balance. Each culture has its strengths and limitations. In the end, the United States will benefit from

Intercultural Management Quarterly

The Intercultural Management Institute cordially invites you to attend the

IMI 10th Anniversary Conference

Milestones in Intercultural Relations A Forum for Business, Education and Training Professionals March 12-13, 2009 On the campus of American University in Washington, DC With more than 20 workshop sessions to choose from, the IMI conference oďŹ&#x20AC;ers varied, hands-on experiences for individuals concerned with advancing intercultural relations. The conference also provides direct networking opportunities with decision makers from a wide range of organizations. Session presenters include intercultural professionals from the areas of international business, academia, government, military, international education, training, and international human resources. ConďŹ rmed Keynote Speakers Include: Carol Bellamy, President & CEO of World Learning/President of SIT Sessions tracks include: Experiential Learning; International Education & Exchange; Negotiation; Cross-Cultural Training; Cross-Cultural Business Practices; Relocation; and Healthcare. Sample Session Titles Include: The Use of Film in Cross-Cultural Training Contrast Culture Simulation: The Khan Exercise Medical Tourism: How Medical Tourism Meets Rising Cultural Challenges Ideal Myths and Real Consequences: Real World Implication of Cultural Perceptions Through the Prism of Culture: Interest Based Negotiations and the U.S. Air Force Diversity Dynamics from a Systems Approach How Gradations of Time Zones Impacts Performance in Global Teams and more! For updated information please visit:

http://www.imi.american.edu Early bird registration rates and scholarships available! Contact: Karen Santiago or Jennifer Tether 202-885-6439, 202-885-6436 karen.santiago@american.edu or jennifer.tether@american.edu Fall 2008

The Intercultural Management Institute Associates Program You are invited to formally join us in the education and discovery of intercultural management and training at American University. Become an IMI Associate and receive the benefits of being more closely involved with the Institute by receiving: * 20% off all IMI workshops and conferences (this does not include Skills Institutes, which are considered academic courses through the School of International Service; also, 20% discount is in addition to any other discounted rates); * The IMI Update, which contains information about current trends and events in the field of intercultural communication, as well as announcements from fellow Associates and links to related intercultural web resources; * A one year subscription to IMQ and free e-copies of IMQ upon request; * NEW! IMI Associate Spotlight!, a networking resource that highlights Associate Members from around the world; * Invitations to Associates-only events. Annual Association fees:

Regular fee: $50

Student fee: $20

Subscription form for the Intercultural Management Institute Associates Program

Regular Member ($50)

Student Member ($20)

Name: Title:

Organization:

Address: State:

City: Country:

E-mail:

Phone:

Fax:

Check Enclosed

Credit Card

Made payable to American University

Name on card:

(circle one) MasterCard VISA AmEx Exp.date:

Signature: Mail to: Fax to:

Zip:

Intercultural Management Institute, American University 4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20016-8177 (202) 885-1331

Cash Enclosed

Card #: Date: Questions? e-mail: imi@american.edu or call (202) 885-6436