TIGblogs TIG | TIGblogs GROUP TIGBLOGS LOGIN SIGNUP
John Nze-Bertram's blog


Closing soon: 2010 WYEF-WYEA International Leadership Training Conference - Feb and March Sessions
About this event: 2010 WYEF-WYEA International Leadership Conference
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

Dear Colleagues,

The booking for the 2010 WYEF-WYEA International Leadership Training
Conference for February and March Sessions are closing soon.

Information about the conference is available on the event website:
http://www.wyea.org/conference

To secure a seat for yourself or your group, please complete and send
the expression of interest form as soon as possible. Preferably,
before 10th of November 2009.

The expression of interest form is available on this web page:
http://worldyouth1.tripod.com/id28.html

This will enable us dispatch you or your group's invitation letter on
time, and also enable you or your group to start your Visa processing
at the Australian Government Department of
Immigration and Citizenship in your region. Visa information is
available here: http://www.immi.gov.au/contacts/overseas/

Looking forward to receiving you or your group's completed expression
of interest form, and welcoming successful delegates to the
conference.

If you have already sent-in your expression of interest information,
we will review and send feedback on or before 15th of November 2009.

Thank you.


Yours sincerely,

John Nze-Bertram
For: World Youth Empowerment Foundation and World Youth Empowerment
Association Inc.
Adelaide,
South Australia
Mob: 0449061457
Website: http://www.wyea.org/conference

October 29, 2009 | 6:25 AM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


CHANGE
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

This article written by John Nze-Bertram

* Summarises the reasons put forward by Pat Row as to why individuals find change difficult to achieve

* Discusses why people dislike (indeed, fear) change

* Examines the reasons why the difficulty faced by individuals in accepting change is an issue that warrants examination in the academic study and ‘real world’ practice of management

* Puts forward means that managers should implement to best overcome reluctance to change



Assessment:
School of Commerce/School of Management
University of South Australia


INTRODUCTION

Savery and Luks (2000, pp. 309-317) explains that, an organization experiences three major changes including structure, technology and people. In response to these changes, an organization ought to plan for change that can be anticipated, and at the same time, create contingency measures that are flexible and can timely and accurately respond to sudden changes as they are occuring (Bungi, Victor & Lentz 2004, pp. 28-34). To assist management in minimising sudden changes, strategic management and planning techniques is important in order to forecast and predict the future of an organization. This enhances management’s ability to make informed decision about possible outcome of different change scenarios (Bungi, Victor & Lentz 2004, pp. 28-34). Consequently, this case study would discuss why people find change difficult, why they fear change, and the reasons why the difficulty faced by individuals in accepting change is an issue that warrants examination in the academic study and ‘real world’ practice of management. In addition, this case study would put forward means that managers should implement to best overcome employees’ reluctance to change.




REASONS WHY PEOPLE FIND CHANGE DIFFICULT, A SUMMARY OF PAT ROWE’S ARTICLE

Pat Rowe, a Managing Partner of the Rowe Partnership and an inspirational organizational leadership trainer, published an article titled ‘The Queen: Are We ‘Hard Wired’ or Can We Change?’ on the 8th of March, 2007. In this article, the author emphasises the importance of change, particularly, referencing a movie called ‘The Queen’ where an Oscar winning Helen Mirren portrayed the courage needed by the British Royal Family to embrace change, this is, despite their ‘hard wired’ regimental lifestyle. The article, informs that change is not easy but it is unavoidable and it is ‘critical to professional growth.’ The author, using the research by Jeffery Schwartz, the author of ‘The Mind and the Brain’, and Sharon Begley, author of ‘Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain’, demonstrated that individual can develop acute fixation to their own ways of doing things (Hard wired) that they resist any attempt to change. According to the article, this phenomenon is influenced by the brain. To illustrate this further, the article gives an example of how Rose the counsellor would find being confrontational (an area of less skill and experience) an energy sapping experience and therefore, would maintain her status quo and would resist any change that could expose her to confrontational situations. However, the author reiterates that ‘change is possible but requires effort.’ Furthermore, pleasure and pains was emphasised to be the primary motivation for change. Next, the article briefly states four steps taking to achieve change–these are: awareness, analysis, alternatives and attack. Finally, people were encouraged to critically focus on the positive end goals derived from change and stick by their self declarations, because those who constantly break their vows to change will never achieved change.




WHY PEOPLE FEAR CHANGE IN THE WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT

Greiner (1972, pp. 37-46) asserts that, once an organization is stabilized and a unilateral organizational culture is formed, and everyone has developed routines and regiments, any changes that are perceived to destabilize this state of comfort would be resisted. Change resonate fear in people, particularly, when such change is sudden and unanticipated (Bungi, Victor & Lentz 2004, pp. 28-34). Academics believe that, ‘uncertainty’ is the primary reason why people resist change; other reasons include threatened self-interest, different perceptions, peer pressure and bureaucratic inertia (Davidson et al. 2009, pp.538-39). For example, uncertainty about job security could lead an employee to resist change (Bijlsma-Frankema 2001, p. 192).

Resistance to change can be as a result of perceptual expectation or distortions (Kitchen & Daly 2002, pp: 46-53). For example, if a change is anticipated to diminish the influence, authority or role of an individual in an organization, he or she will resist the change (Foegen 1998, pp.2-5). In addition, having formed a regimental and organised way (habits and routine) by which an individual tackles their daily job routine (habituation), any ambiguity that displaces this bureaucratic system of coordination of work activities would be resisted (Burton-Jones & Hubona 2006, pp. 706-717). This resistance to change may be induced by perceived psychological or physiological stress. Older workers are most culpable to resisting change that involves learning new routines or skills, as this could be technically or intellectually challenging to them (Burton-Jones & Hubona 2006, pp. 706-717). People can also resist change in the workplace for fear of making mistakes or fear of exposing their hidden weaknesses (Pierce, Kostova & Dirks 2001, pp. 298-310). So also are individuals that have invested their life time specialising in a specific job task and have organised their family or social life to align with this workplace routines, they would resist any change that threatens this engrained morals, values and ethics (Burton-Jones & Hubona 2006, pp. 706-717). People’s resistance to change could be as a result allegiance to informal groups within an organization that are opposed to change (Steiner 2001, pp: 150-167). Other reasons employees resist change includes: feeling of guilt (survivor syndrome); and fear of loss of investment such as life savings.

Fieldler’s contingency theory on leadership behaviours explains that inflexible leaders (autocratic, democratic or laizzez-faire) would be threaten by a change in organizational culture, and therefore, they would resist change (Davidson et al. 2009, p.362).




INDIVIDUALS’ RESISTANCE TO CHANGE, ACADEMIC STUDY AND ‘REAL WORLD’ PRACTICE OF MANAGEMENT.

According to Yoo, Lemak & Choi (2006 pp: 352 -368), critical analysis of Henri Fayol ‘s fourteen principles of management exposes the key factors why change is inevitable. It features unilateralist contexts such as unity of command, unity of direction, centralisation, stability of tenure of personnel, and esprit de corps. On the other hand, the same principle emphasises the need for innovation and creativity in order to facilitate organizational growth and competiveness. It is this later principle that creates change which displaces the equilibrium achieved with the former principles. This results to a dilemma where individual would have to restructure their formal and informal lives to congruent with the prevailing innovative change (Rodrigues 2001 p.880). And those who cannot change ‘fall-out’ of the system. From this inference, it becomes obvious that at one time or the other, even the most traditional and regimental organization or individual would have to change unconditionally or forced to change against their will (Davidson et al. 2009, p.42-3). This means that for an organization to retain their most valuable staffs, management would have to plan for change, and also prepare their staffs for change (Feinstein, Mann & Corsun 2002, p.732).

Considering the paradigm shift from the traditional to the contemporary model of change processes, it is imperative that efforts are being made to catapult the traditional managers (such as the baby boomers) to the contemporary business environment including blending their traditional know-how to contemporary best-practices, systems and dynamics (Easterby-Smith 1990, pp.24-8). For a traditional manager, using the Lewin’s three stage hypothesis of change process is what he/she would have been used to. This theory explains that to effectively implement change three stages have to be undertaking – these are: Unfreezing the status quo; changing the status quo; and refreezing the new status quo (Davidson et al. 2009, p. 537). However, this hypothesis is only ideal in a stable environment, therefore, limited in its application to this era’s dynamic business environment. This means that, the traditional Manager would have to change to a new ideology and concept in order to remain valuable.

This new paradigm is explained by Davidson et al. (2009, p. 537) to include a seven stage of change process. These include: recognising that change is necessary, setting the goals for which the change aims to achieve, using multi-dimensional analysis strategy to examine various scenarios of change (and its effect and outcome), then, selecting the appropriate change technique, planning how the change can be efficiently and effectively implemented, executing actual implementation, and lastly, evaluating the change to ensure that it has achieved maximum outcome and follow-up on feedbacks.

Dunphy and Stance (1990) cited in (Dawson 1996, p.60) asserts that the scale of change and the mode of change influences the approach a manager adopts in responding to specific situations in the organization. For example, in a stable environment where employees understand the reasons why change is needed – the best change process is to get the employees to participate in the change process and then, gradually implement changes on an incremental base. Whereas, Charismatic transformation is an enterprise-wide change that is implemented in response to an unexpected situation, but where the workforce welcomes the change (Dawson 1996, p.60). Forced Evolution is a timely implementation of change in phases, particularly, for the reason that a lingering tug-of-war among stakeholders is hindering the implementation of certain aspects of the change. And, Dictatorial transformation is an unexpected large-scale change that is implemented by coercing the workforce to accepting the change (Dawson 1996, p.60).
As part of an organization’s development strategy and in view to increasing efficiency, effectiveness and productivity in a dynamic environment, experts from external best-practice firms are contracted to analyse, develop and implement a phase by phase, or incremental change within an organization. This may involve up-skilling the employees in order to reduce the fear of change while introducing innovative ideas (Bowman & Daniels 1995, p.157).

According to Davidson et al. (2009, p.551-4), ‘Innovation is the managed effort of an organization to develop new products or services or new uses for existing products or services.’ Creativity is an aspect of innovation and involves: creation of new products and services or markets; modification of existing business structures, processes or products; and synthesis or combination of two or more existing things in the organisation to create new outcomes. Innovation can be classified as, radical innovation, incremental innovation, technical innovation, managerial innovation and product innovation (Davidson et al. 2009, p.551-4). Resistance to change is a serious impediment to innovation. Therefore, in order to facilitate innovation, management must encourage creativity, empower staffs to develop intrepreneurial skills, implement cross-functional and cross-specialisation programs; adopt organisational culture that encourages innovation and creativity (Davidson et al. 2009,p.556).

According to Davidson et al. (2009, p.555) ‘an organization’s culture consists of the set of values, beliefs and symbols that help guide behaviour.’ Dawson 1996, p.64) explains that to effectively coordinate an enterprise-wide change, the top level management would set the strategic goals that focuses on the broad general plans and goals; middle management would focus on the tactical plans including identifying specific actions to achieving positive change outcome; and the first level managers would handle the operational plans by directly utilising the tactical strategies to effectively motivate employee’s to support change.




OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

According to Davidson et al. (2009, p.541), Force-field analysis ‘help a manager identify those forces that are driving the change and those that are resisting it’. Robbins et al. (2006) recommended six steps for reducing the resistance to change - these are: Firstly, through education and improved communication: The aim of this strategy is to empower the employees through up-skilling or training on new job and informing them of the reason for the change and how they, the employees could benefit from the change (Middlehurst & Barnett 1994, pp.48-66). This will increase employees’ morale and their solidarity with management. Second method is, through participation: As employees participate in decision making towards implementing change, they become stakeholders in the change process and are more cooperative towards change implementation, thereby, reducing resistance to change (Iles & Mabey 1993, pp.103-18). Third method is, through facilitation and support: This strategy is to notify employees of the impending change well in advance so that they can have time to adjust. In addition, incentives could be given to potential oppositions so as to induce them to step aside for a while during the period of change implementation .Next method is, Negotiation: This strategy involves coming to a common understanding with the oppositions through compromise (Robbins et al. 2006).
Next method is, plain manipulation and cooption (Robbins et al. 2006): This strategy involves, cleverly using rumour, distortion of facts and misinformation to divert the attention of employees, but at the same time, subtlety wooing the employees to accept the proposed change. Coercion is the last method (Robbins et al. 2006): This method involves out-rightly forcing the employees to accept change. Academics warn that the last two methods are toxic to an organisation’s human relations management (Folger & Skarlicki 1999, p.35). It can cause permanent damage to the interpersonal relationship between management and employees, and result in business turnover, absenteeism, loss of confidence, and outright deviant behaviours across the organisation (Folger & Skarlicki 1999, p.35).

Mayo and Hawthorne studies on human nature informs that, informal structures, counter cultures and frames of reference are other contexts by which management could explore to reduce resistance to change (Budd & Bhave 2006, pp. 5 -30). This involves targeting key informal leaders within an organisation and using them as conduits to pacify those resisting change or to rally support for change. According to Budd & Bhave (2006, pp. 5 -30) , when planning to reduce resistance to change , ideas from different schools of thought within the organization should be considered - This includes unitarism, pluralism and marxism frames of reference. Also, alliance with countercultures’ leaders within the organization are useful to reducing resistance to change and harnessing alternative view point that can improve decisions making (Fisher 1997, pp.37-48).

Unitarism views the organisation as a single unit consisting of like-minded people all geared towards the achievement of organisational goals under the single authority of the collective’s head [in organisational terms that would be management]. Phrases such ‘we’re all one big happy family’ and ‘we’re all team players’ are indicative of a unitarist frame of reference. To the unitarist, anyone who disagrees with the central authority or the way things are done is regarded as some kind of deviant troublemaker and the main method of dealing with them and the trouble they cause is to somehow eradicate them and reduce their influence.

Pluralism on the other hand accepts that any organisation, social entity or collective consists of individuals with their own self-interests as well as accepting, for one reason or another, organisational interests. Eventually any individual’s self-interest will impinge upon another’s or upon the interests of the organisation, just as organisational interests will of course sometimes impinge on an individual’s self-interest. To a pluralist therefore conflict is inevitable: it’s a fact of life, and the important thing is not to attempt to eradicate it because such a course is self-defeating as it inevitably leads to more conflict. The answer is to lessen the damage, conflict and dissension it creates and attempt to manage it by dispersing power more evenly via rules and procedures governing how conflict is resolved. Unlike unitarists (who view all conflict as basically bad and unwelcome), the pluralist sees it as both a source of possible innovation via different ideas and perceptions as well as a useful check on malpractices within the organisation.

Marxism however views the whole organisation (and capitalist society generally) as a means by which a small elite of wealthy owners (who possess the vast share of the unequal distribution of capital) coerce and exploit the large majority of the less-well-off to service that capital for the sole benefit of that elite. The Marxist therefore does not so much see conflict as inevitable, but as endemic within the very structure of society and the organisations run by capitalists for capitalists. In short, conflict is built into the system and it is a class-structured conflict based on the raw exercise of asymmetrical economic and social power. The way to eradicate conflict, therefore, is to change the whole system and replace it with a system that does not contain such an endemic source of conflict and oppressive exploitation. This type of view, if one removes the communist political overtones, is often referred to as radicalism. Radicals tend to go for large-scale systemic change, rather than the pluralist line of containment and incremental change.

All three of these frames of reference are present within any organisation and society at any given time. However each has their problems:

• Unitarists are in danger of creating organisations full of drone-type or sycophantic ‘yes people’ who never question the status quo and therefore are incapable of thinking beyond the square creatively or innovatively. Even if people are able to do this, they keep their mouths shut in case they are regarded as troublemakers in the face of centralised management prerogative.

• Pluralists on the other hand are in danger of being overrun by the rules and procedures they develop; in some cases the rules and procedures governing conflict and behavioural norms become more important than what they are designed to achieve.

• Radicals are in danger of smashing the system, but often have no better or viable alternative with which to replace it. Despite their criticisms of the system (which can often be valid), they merely want the change they want and can be completely unwilling to accept any counterargument from others – as Galbraith (1969, p. 87) once famously said ‘The man who argues with a Marxist has always been assaulting a rock fortress with a rubber flail’.

In order to reduce resistance to change, Hinterhuber & Popp (1992, pp.105-13) recommends a combination of the leadership and management approach. Path-goal theory of leadership and Transaction leadership involves ‘guiding and motivating followers in the direction of established goals, by clarifying task and role requirements’ (Davidson 2009, p. 369). Transformational leadership theorist suggests examining an individual’s personal fears towards change and helping that individual with a tailored solution to overcoming such fear (Davidson 2009, p. 369). Overall, managers should be able to adopt the best leadership approach in response to the change context.




CONCLUSION:

Academics have conducted extensive research in the field of change and the result is that change is constant, inevitable and a part of life. This is supported by Pat Rowe’s article where he explained that though people maybe ‘hard wired’ to resist change, but they can still change if motivated by ‘pleasure or pain’. Other scholars blame uncertainty, threatened self-interest, different perceptions, peer pressure and bureaucratic inertia as the reasons why people fear change. In the contemporary work place, the fear of change is a great obstacle to innovation and creativity. Therefore, to solve these problems, the management need to have strategic plans in view to managing change and reducing resistance to change. This includes participation, education and facilitation. Also, managers have to understand the personality, motivation and perceptions of their subordinates including how to build effective teams in view to reducing an individual or a group’s resistance to change (Helms & Haynes 1992, pp. 17-21).




Reference:
Allcorn, S 2003, The dynamic workplace: present structure and future redesign, Greenwood Publishing Group, p.14

Bijlsma-Frankema, K 2001, ‘On managing cultural integration and cultural change processes in mergers and acquisitions’, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 25, no. 2/3/4, pp: 192-207

Bowman, C & Daniels, K 1995, ‘The influence of functional experience on perceptions of strategic priorities’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No.3, pp.157-67

Budd, JW & Bhave, D 2006, Values, Ideologies, and Frames Of Reference

Bungi, P; Victor, B & Lentz, J 2004, ‘Case Study: Modelling how their business really works prepares managers for sudden change’, Strategy and Leadership, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., vol.32, no. 2, pp. 28 -34

Burton-Jones, A & Hubona, GS 2006, ‘The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model’, Information & Management, vol.43, Issue 6, pp. 706-717

Cooperrider, DL & Srivastva, S 1987, ‘Appreciative inquiry in organizational life’, Research in Organizational Change and Development, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, vol. 1, pp.129-69.

Davidson, P, Simon, A, Woods, P & Griffin, RW 2009, Management: Core Concepts and Applications, 2nd Australasian edn, John Wiley & Sons, Milton, Qld.

Dawson, P 1996 ‘Beyond Conventional Change Models: A Processual Perspective’ Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 34, no. 57, p.60

Dunphy, D & Stace, D 1990, Under New Management: Australian Organisations in Transition, McGraw-Hill, Sydney.

Easterby-Smith, M 1990, ‘Creating a learning organisation’, Personnel Review, Vol. 19 No.5, pp.24-8.

Feinstein, AH, Mann, S, Corsun, DL 2002, ‘Charting the experiential territory: clarifying definitions and uses of computer simulations, games and role play’, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 No.10, pp.732-44.

Fisher, J 1997, ‘The three dominant cultures of the workplace’, National Productivity Review, Vol. 16 No.2, pp.37-48.

Foegen, J 1998, ‘Are managers losing control?’, Business Horizons, Vol. 41 No.2, pp.2-5.

Folger, R & Skarlicki, DP 1999, ‘Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as mistreatment’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12, No.1, pp: 35-50

Greiner, LE 1972, ‘Evolution and Revolution as Organisations Grow’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 50, pp. 37–46.

Helms, MM & Haynes, PJ 1992, ‘Are you really listening?, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 7 No.6, pp.17-21.

Hinterhuber, HH & Popp, W 1992, ‘Are you a strategist or just a manager?’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No.1, pp.105-13.

Iles, P & Mabey, C 1993, ‘Managerial career development programmes: effectiveness, availability and acceptability’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 4 No.2, pp.103-18.

Budd, JW & Bhave, D 2006, Values, Ideologies, and Frames of Reference In Employment Relations, Industrial Relations Center, Minnesota, ch. 5, pp. 5 -30

Kitchen, PJ & Daly, F 2002, ‘Internal communication during change management’, International Journal of Corporate Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, pp: 46-53

Middlehurst, R., Barnett, R 1994, ‘Changing the subject: the organization of knowledge and academic culture’, Managing the University Curriculum: Making Common Cause, The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham, pp.48-66.

Pierce, JL; Kostova, T & Dirks KT 2001, ‘Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 298-310

Robbins, S, Bergman, R, Stagg, I & Coulter, M 2006, Management, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, Frenchs Forest, NSW.

Robbins, SP & Barnwell, N 1994, Organisational Theory in Australia, 2nd edn, Prentice Hall, Sydney.

Rodrigues, CA 2001, ‘Fayol's 14 principles of management then and now: a framework for managing today's organizations effectively’, Management Decision, Vol. 39 No.10, pp.880-90.

Savery, LK & Luks, JA 2000, ‘Organizational change: the Australian experience’, Journal of Management Development, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 309-317

Steiner, C 2001, ‘A role for individuality and mystery in “managing” change’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp: 150-167

Yoo, JW, Lemak, DJ & Choi, Y 2006, ‘Principles of management and competitive strategies: using Fayol to implement Porter’, Journal of Management History, vol.12, no. 4, pp: 352-368

June 12, 2009 | 8:44 AM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


Management – it’s all about controlling the workforce...or is it?
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

ESSAY WRITTEN BY:
John Nze-Bertram

EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT :
School of Management/ School of Commerce
University of South Australia



MANAGEMENT – IT’S ALL ABOUT CONTROLLING THE WORKFORCE...OR IS IT?

Leading financial experts including professionals from the IMF and World bank in a communiqué titled ‘G20 Working Group on Reinforcing International Cooperation and Promoting Integrity in Financial Markets (WG2)’ proposed ‘supervisory colleges for all major cross-border financial institutions, as part of efforts to strengthen the surveillance of cross-border firms’ in view to addressing the global financial crisis. (G20 WG2 2009, p. 3). The report also emphasises that ‘Regardless of the scope of regulatory regimes, the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms (to control people) should be considered.’(G20 WG2 2009, pp.37-38).This report facilitated the unanimous support by the G20 leaders of a philosophy proposed by Gordon Brown , the UK prime minister, of ‘Capitalism with a conscience’. (Weisman & Macdonald 2009, p.8). This is in order to stop the culture of corporate greed. According to Barte (1984, p.45), organization culture means ‘the company’s way of doing things’ and Reynolds (2009, p.333) asserts that organizational culture determines organizational performance. Pursuant to this preamble, while defining the meaning of management, role of managers, functions of management, internal, external and international environment affecting contemporary management systems, this essay will critically discuss the importance of management’s ability to effectively and efficiently control the workforce in order to achieve organizational goals.


Human beings are complex and diverse, and are difficult to manipulate due to ethical reasons. Human beings resist change, and always strive to maintain status quo.(Watson 1971, p.8). On the contrary, machines, information systems and technologies, infrastructures, business processes and other micro and macrocosms of an organization can be manipulated, changed, restructured or programmed to achieve desired organizational goals. Since it is the human beings that are needed to design, coordinate and integrate the holistic aspects of a business, it becomes imperative to assume that once the human factor is right all other aspects of a business will be right. (Reynolds 2009, p.333). This includes good organizational culture, quality products and services, and healthy relationship with the environment. This may explain why notable academics such as Fryer et al. (2004, p.1) defines management as using people and co-ordinating their specific tasks to achieve organizational goals.


However, it is arguable that this definition of management above is a misfit considering the complex functions of management in a contemporary business environment. (Cravens et al. 1997, p.493). The contemporary business environment is constantly changing, and is affected by globalization, socio-cultural and political-legal changes and the advancement of information technology, especially, the internet. Therefore, this pressure from external environmental factors demands that management response to the changing business climate quickly, timely and accurately, and constantly modify business process to suite emerging trends. (Cravens et al. 1997, p.494).This is achieved by flattening management hierarchy in order to speed up decision making in response to external environmental factors. (Cravens et al. 1997, p.495). This paradigm shift from the traditional to the contemporary business atmosphere has inspired some academics to question the notion that management is all about controlling people. For example, when recommending a contemporary management approach to managers in the construction industry, Fryer et al.( 2004, p.1) ‘have called for improved collaboration between industry and academia in research, increased focus on diversity and equality issues, and performance based approach to tackling challenges of modern day.’ This means that, management is now extending outside of the internal workplace to managing complex alliances with other organizations in view to remaining sustainable.


When discussing management hierarchy, Jones and George (2003, p.4) explains that there are three management levels that are occupied by managers. Managers ‘are people who are responsible for supervising the use of an organization’s human and other resources to achieve its goals.’ (Jones & George 2003, p.4). These three levels of management hierarchy are the first line management, middle management and top management. On the bottom of the management hierarchy is the first line managers whose duties includes effectively and efficiently supervising the non-management employees and co-ordinating individual work activities to achieving organizational goals – in this category is the marketing manager, finance manager, human resources manager, and others. Next, is the middle managers – their duties include ensuring that the first line managers are efficiently and effectively utilizing human, material and other resources to achieve organizational goals , in accordance with the mandates, plans and visions of the top management. They also give feedbacks to the top managers about the business progress, and recommend what need to be improved – managers in this category include the general manager and division manager. Lastly, on top of the management hierarchy is the top manager – key duties include ensuring that the organization succeeds, and expectations from customers and investors are met. In addition, the top manager, monitors, evaluates and analysis’s the socio-cultural, political, economic and international environment, and utilizes the feedback to improve business focus and processes, value chain, and competitive advantage. This is to say that, the success or failure of an organization is in the hands of the management, particularly, the top manager. According to Fredrickson, Hambrick and Baumrin (1988, p.255) ‘CEO’s get fired... when their organization performs poorly.’ Practical example is the recent sacking of Rick Wagoner, the GM motors’ CEO, by the US government, for the collapse of the 100 year old organization.


Despite the plurality in the definition of management, academics agree that four basic functions of management including planning, leading, organizing, and controlling are key functions undertaken by a manager, in view to, efficiently and effectively use organization’s resources to achieve its goal. These functions are integrated with one another. Kliem and Anderson (1996, p. 4) explains that - Planning: is a process of careful analysis of business initiatives and goals, and strategic design of activities to achieve them. Leading: is empowering people to work individually or as a team, through motivation, influence, and effective communication. Organizing: involves quantifying, mobilizing, distributing, positioning and allocating resources and coordinating activities. Controlling: is monitoring and evaluating the holistic business processes, and scanning through the internal and external environment of a business - including organizational culture, human resources, quality of goods or services, customers’ response, emerging trends, competitive forces, socio-cultural, political, economic, and international environment - in view to generate feedback that can be utilised by management to increase productivity. (Kliem & Anderson 1996, p. 4)


Taking into consideration the meaning of control above, the view by Flamholtz (1996, p.2) that ‘organizations must influence or control the behaviours of people, if they are to fulfil their plans and achieve their goals’ becomes debatable. Flamholtz ( 1996, p.2) enumerated workforce control techniques as including personal supervision, standard operating procedures, rules, accounting measurement and performance appraisal systems. While Flamholtz’s assertions are debatable, it cannot be ignored, because, the global economic recession is directly linked to people’s greed. In a best seller book titled ‘Infectious greed: how deceit and risk corrupted the financial markets’, the author portrays how greed-driven culture and dubious or illegal corporate finance and accounting have lead industries and economies to a perilous crossroad. ( Partnoy 2003, p.1)


In conclusion, the global financial crisis has been linked to corporate greed and has resulted in a recommendation by world leading financial experts and supported by world leaders that the workforce (leaders of top financial institutions) must be controlled through a new cultural philosophy called ‘capitalism with a conscience’ in order to revive the global economy. Though, academics argue that the contemporary management is more than just controlling the workforce, but involves, controlling and integrating the holistic internal and external environmental forces. However, the current depression amidst smart technologies implies that if the workforce (people) is not controlled effectively, an organization cannot achieve its goals.


References:

Bate, P 1984, ‘The impact of organizational culture on approaches to organizational problem-solving’, Organization Studies, Sage Publication, California, p. 45

Cravens, DW, Greenley, G, Piercy, NF & Slater, S 1997, ‘Integrating contemporary strategic management perspectives’ , Long Range Planning, Elsevier Ltd, Missouri, vol.30, no. 4, pp. 493 -506

Flamholtz, E 1996, Effective Management Control: Theory and Practice, Springer, New York, p.2

Fredrickson, JW, Hambrick, DC & Baumrin,S 1988, ‘A Model of CEO Dismissal’, The Academy of Management Review, Columbia University, New York, vol.13, no. 2, p.255

Fryer, M, Egbu, C, Ellis, R & Gorse, CA 2004,‘The development of management thinking’, The practice of construction management: people and business performance,4 edn., Wiley-Blackwell, USA, p.1

G20 WG22009, ‘G20 Working Group on Reinforcing International Cooperation and Promoting Integrity in Financial Markets (WG2)’,Communiqué, G20 publications, United Kingdom 2009 website, viewed 5 April 2009, <http://www.g20.org/pub_communiques.aspx>

Jones, GR & George, JM 2003, Essentials of Contemporary Management, McGraw Hill Professional, Ohio, p.4

Kliem, RL & Anderson, HB 1996, ‘Teambuilding Styles and Their Impact on Project Management Results’, Project Management Journal, Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, vol. XXVII, no. 1, p.8

Partnoy, F 2003, Infectious greed: how deceit and risk corrupted the financial markets, 2nd edn., Holt, USA, p.1

Reynolds, PD 2009, ‘Organizational culture as related to industry, position and performance: a preliminary report’, Journal of Management Studies, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, UK, vol. 23, no. 3, p.333

Watson, G 1971, ‘Resistance to Change’, American Behavioral Scientist, Sage, California, p.8

WEISMAN, J & MACDONALD, A 2009, ‘Obama, Brown Strike Similar Notes on Economy’, Business, The Wall Street Journal, New York, p. 8

June 6, 2009 | 5:43 AM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


Nonverbal cues and effect on communication within a culturally diverse organization or team - with a focus on kinesics, artefacts and proxemics
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

ESSAY WRITTEN BY:
John Nze-Bertram

ASSESSMENT :
School of Communication / School of International Studies
University of South Australia


DISCUSSING HOW NONVERBAL CUES AFFECT COMMUNICATION WITHIN A CULTURALLY DIVERSE ORGANIZATION OR TEAM - WITH A FOCUS ON KINESICS, ARTEFACTS AND PROXEMICS

Academics differ in their definition of communication, however, it is a generally accepted theory that communication involves encoding, transmitting and decoding messages by a sender and receiver and vice versa. Fiske (2002, p.2) refers interpersonal communication as a process of social interaction ‘by which one person relates to another, or affects the behaviour, state of mind or emotional response of another, and, of course, vice versa.’ In addition, Phinney & Halstead (2003, p.13) assert that ‘communication is less than 20 percent verbal and 80 percent non verbal’ and defines non verbal communication as ‘communication without words.’ Since the bulk of meanings derived from social interaction are associated with nonverbal cues, this essay will therefore discuss the effect of non-verbal communication in the workplace. To begin, this essay will examine the different ways by which nonverbal cues relates to verbal communication. And then, three factors of non verbal communication will be discussed. This includes kinesics, artefacts and proxemics.


In their article on politeness, Debi Laplante and Nalini Ambady, social psychologists of the Harvard University, assert that, it is a common misjudgement of researchers to only examine politeness based on the spoken word and exclude the entire non verbal cues that manifests during an interpersonal interaction such as tone of voice and facial expression. These nonverbal cues they concur are ‘so powerful that they can communicate information about internal states, attitudes, and feelings’ (Laplante & Ambady 2003, p.434). This means that the verbal and nonverbal cues have to compliment in order to mean ‘polite’. For example, a smile, a bow and personal distance can compliment with words to re-enforce politeness. On the other hand, a frown, a carefree posture and barging into a customer’s intimate zone accompanied with a spoken word such as ‘Thank you’ could be perceived to be rude. Despite the worker’s good intention by the spoken word, the nonverbal cues have contradicted the verbal. Other ways that nonverbal cues can translate into meanings include: Message substitution - a wave of the hand coupled with a smile could mean a warm hello or goodbye; Message accentuation or intensification – kneeling down coupled with a slight bowing of the head when making a request may stir up compassion; Message regulation – combinations of body language and vocal modulations could facilitate turn taking during conversation.


However, different cultures have different ways of expressing themselves nonverbally which may mean something else from another person’s cultural perspective. This results in communication complexity in a diverse workplace environment. Having recognised this fact, this essay will only discuss nonverbal cues that are cross cultural in nature.


First is kinesics. Karsten (2006, p.10) in the book titled, Gender, race, and ethnicity in the workplace: issues and challenges for today's organizations, defines kinesics behaviour as movement, gesture or body posture. Furthermore, the book asserts that it is typical for men to stretch their body posture including arms and legs in such a way that it occupies more space than a woman would. For Example, ‘Males also tend to swing their arms farther away from their body, lean backward more, and have open and relaxed body than is the tendency for women. Such male body postures and movements nonverbally convey messages of dominance and power.’(Karsten 2006, pp.10 -11) On the other hand, Giddens & Griffiths (2006, p.133) explains that though in contrast a male could stare at a woman and be perceived to be acting in a ‘natural’ or innocent way; whereas a woman who stares at a man could be perceived to be acting in a suggestive or sexually leading manner. This could result to misunderstanding between co-workers.


The second factor that affects non verbal communication in workplace is artefacts. Artefacts include clothes, jewelleries, masks, tattoos and piercings. When communicating nonverbally clothes have strong influence on how someone is perceived. For example, a nurse and police personnel can be singled out from a crowd because of their uniforms. For the police personnel, the uniform is his or her symbol of authority and this influence the way people reacts toward him or her. Similarly, in a workplace, artefacts such as uniforms can enhance workers’ solidarity and cooperation. However, there are artefacts that are offensive in a workplace environment and can lead to conflict. This includes tattoos or jewelleries that exhibit racial or religious discriminatory symbols or inscriptions on clothing that can be perceived as derogatory and sexually offensive.


The last factor that can affect non verbal communication in workplace is proxemics. According to Garnett & Kouzmin (1997, p.417), ‘Proxemics is the use of physical space in communication. It is a science that studies the effect of closeness, distance, furniture arrangement, and environmental attributes to communication.’ This infers that, the distance between workers’ sitting arrangement, the office furniture and the workspace can be used to determine a worker’s role and status in the workplace. Consequently, this can affect a worker’s performance, and the organizational atmosphere. For example, workers who are ‘housed away from people with whom they must interact experience impeded performance, as may those who are surrounded with too many co-workers.’ (Garnett & Kouzmin 1997, p.417).


Gottlieb (2003, p.178) informs that during interpersonal communication it is common for four distinct distances to be exhibited. These are: intimate distance, personal distance, social distance and public distance. Intimate distance ranges from skin to skin contact to 18 inches apart - this is a distance commonly exhibited by people who have close affiliation. On the other hand, personal distance ranges from18 inches to about 4 feet apart - this distance reinforces group cohesion especially, when working on a group project. While, social distance ranges from 4 to 12 feet out - this distance is commonly observed in a business meeting during one-on-one discussions. And last is the public distance – this ranges from12 feet and outward - this is the distance between a presenter and the audience. Withdrawing or intruding into these zones could lead to misunderstanding.


In conclusion, by citing academic sources, this essay has established the fact that meanings of messages derived during interpersonal communication are substantially from nonverbal cues. These nonverbal cues can re-enforce, contradict, regulate, and accentuate or intensify verbal communication, and includes: Kinesics – movement, gesture or body posture; Artefacts - clothing, jewellery, masks, tattoos and piercings; and Proxemics – effects of closeness, environmental attributes, and distance – intimate, personal, social and public distance to communication. Furthermore, inappropriate nonverbal conduct (consciously or unconsciously exhibited) can lead to conflict or misunderstanding in the workplace.



References:

Fiske, J 2002, Introduction to communication studies, 2nd edn., Routledge, New York, p.2

Garnett, JL & Kouzmin, A 1997, Handbook of administrative communication, CRC Press, New York, p. 417

Giddens, A & Griffiths, S 2006, Sociology, 5th edn., Polity, UK, p.133

Gottlieb, MR 2003, ‘Proxemics’, Managing group process, Greenwood Publishing Group, London, p. 179

Karsten, MF 2006, Gender, race, and ethnicity in the workplace: issues and challenges for today's organizations, Greenwood Publishing Group, London, vol.3, p.10

Laplante, D & Ambady, N 2003, ‘On How Things Are Said: Voice Tone, Voice Intensity, Verbal Content, and Perceptions of Politeness’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Sage, vol. 22, no. 4, p.434

Phinney, DJ & Halstead, JH 2003, ‘Verbal and non verbal communication’, Delmar's Dental Assisting: A Comprehensive Approach, 2nd Edn., Cengage Learning, Kentucky, p. 13

June 6, 2009 | 5:26 AM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


ISSUES AND BENEFITS OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY WITHIN A CULTURALLY DIVERSE ORGANIZATION OR TEAM
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

Article Writen by:
John Nze-Bertram

ASSESSMENT :
School of Communication / School of International Studies
University of South Australia

ISSUES AND BENEFITS OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY WITHIN A CULTURALLY DIVERSE ORGANIZATION OR TEAM

Research by the Australian Centre for International Business (ACIB) cited in Shen et al. (2009, p.236) indicates that ‘diversity (including cultural diversity) improves the quality of management decisions, and provides innovative ideas and superior solutions to organizational problems.’ However, extensive research by academics suggests that care has to be taken in composing a culturally diverse team as the efficiency and effectiveness of a team outcome can be affected, negatively or positively, by various factors including the type of task, cross-cultural understanding and interpersonal skills possessed by the individuals (Horwitz & Horwitz 2007, p. 997; Helft & Markoff 2007, pp.1-4; Richard et al. 2003, pp. 107 - 126). Consequently, this easy will critically examine the various cultural issues that can affect a formal team composed of individuals from Australia and China whose interpersonal communications are conducted on face to face bases and sometimes, through virtual meetings. First, this essay will discuss how the team is composed and its communication network. Secondly, the cultural issues that affect the team would be analysed - these include cultural dimensions such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity; and cultural contexts such as high/low contexts, individualist/collectivist culture, monochromic/polychromic cultures, tight/loose cultures; and cultural differences in nonverbal cue. Thirdly, this essay will examine the impact of face to face meetings and virtual communication on team’s performance. Finally, cross-cultural conflict management strategies and team performance enhancement paradigms would be examined.


A team is a temporary group of individuals that are united with the aim of accomplishing a specific goal by harnessing their collective intelligence and physical abilities (Tyler, Kossen and Ryan 1999, p. 187). A team can be a functional or task oriented group. In a formal functional group, the team leader is an individual on the higher level of organizational hierarchy, to whom others would report to. On the contrary, power is distributed equally in a task oriented group. The Australian-Chinese Team is a task oriented group. The unique attribute of this team is that individuals can participate equally in discussions and decision making. In this team, the all-channel communication network structure is used to facilitate group discussions. Experts advise that the size of a team affects team effectiveness. According to Crossman, Bordia and Bretag (2009, p. 489), to avoid deadlock, a team composition should be an odd number preferably five or seven people, because it is large enough for different ideas but small enough to allow participation.


The Australian-Chinese team is a culturally diverse team. According to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), ‘Diversity is the quality of being different and unique’ (AAT 2009). And culture is “the commonly shared beliefs, values, and norms of a group of people” (Northouse 2007, p.338). Hofstede (1980, pp.42-45) identified four cultural dimensions that can impact on the team. These are: Power distance, Uncertainty avoidance, Individualism/collectivism and Masculinity/femininity. Power distance is the degree by which people of a particular culture respect and reveres those in authority (Hofstede 1980, pp.42-45). In a high power distance society such as China, leaders have so much power over the individual and their positions of power are not challenged. Unlike, in a low power distance society such as Australia where individuals do not readily acknowledge those in authorities and they can challenge the directives of a leader, especially, when the individual perceives a threat to his or her right (Hofstede 1980, pp.42-45). For this reason, the Australian-Chinese team would be affected by the way individuals react to power distribution (such as respect for age and experience) within the team (Hofstede 1980, pp.42-45).


The second dimension is uncertainty avoidance. Hofstede (1980, pp.45, 47) explains that uncertainty avoidance is ‘The extent to which members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unclear situations’. People from weak uncertainty avoidance culture take each day as it comes, they are less aggressive, less hard working, willing to take risk, and believes that the main duty of authorities is to serve the people (Hofstede 1980, p. 47). Australia is a weak uncertainty avoidance society. On the other hand, people from a strong uncertainty avoidance society believe that they must eliminate any circumstance that cannot be accurately predicted. For this reason, the people have high stress and anxiety levels, work very hard to ensure that their future needs are met, and depend so much on rules and regulations (Hofstede 1980, p. 47). To the Australian-Chinese team, this uncertainty avoidance dimension affects how individuals react towards changes within the group and threats that are perceived to adversely affect the team outcome (Hofstede 1980, p. 47).


Individualism/collectivism – this is explained by (Hofstede 1980, p. 45) to mean the extent at which a culture differs on a continuum from self interest to common good. For this reason, an individualist culture exists when people are so much pre-occupied with their own selfish benefits than working collectively to benefit the community. Individualistic society is heterogeneous. Australia is grouped as an Individualistic culture. On the contrary, China is said to be a collective culture because people’s emphasis is on group benefit. It is a norm in a collectivist society to respect hierarchy and to depend on one another for socio-economic sustenance and security. For this reason the Australian-Chinese team will experience difficulty in developing team cohesiveness. This could also result in a split in group bonding between the Chinese and Australian members of the team.


Hofstede explains that Masculinity/femininity dimension of culture is a measurement of the extent to which ‘the dominant value of a society is “masculine”- that is, assertiveness, acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others, the quality of life, and people’( Hofstede 1980, p.46). In a ‘Masculine’ culture, the gender of individuals is highly differentiated, men believe they are superior to the woman, ostentatious behaviours are encouraged, individuals are materialistic, prefer independence, and are aggressively competitive. On the other hand, in a feminine culture - men need not to be assertive, nurturing is a virtue, interdependence is a core value, sexes are not discriminated, people are not materialistic, and people value one another and the environment. According to Hofstede (1980, p.54), Australia is placed at the middle level on the Masculine-Feminine Scale. This affects the way males in the Australian-Chinese team perceive their female colleagues. While the Chinese men are withdrawn from the females, the Australian males are accommodating. Also, while the Chinese are interest in group outcome, the Australians are interested in individual performance (Hofstede 1980, p.54).


Other cultural dimensions and contexts are: high/low context cultures, individualist/collectivist cultures, monochromic/polychromic cultures, and tight/loose cultures (Hall 1981, p.113).

Hall (1981, p.113) explains that an individual from a high context culture, like China - would avoid arguments during discussions, may not get to the root of the issue quickly, would try to establish friendly atmosphere before engaging in serious dialogue, and believes that the leader makes the decision (Hall 1981, p.113). On the contrary, an Australian, classified as an individual from low context culture - would be explicit, straight to the point, would avoid intermittent silence during conversation, and would like to be involved in decision making (Hall 1981, p.113). These high/low cultural differences will impact on the interpersonal communication efficiency of the Australian-Chinese team members. Conflict may arise if the Chinese team members view the Australian team members as too overbearing. Similarly, the Australian team members could also accuse the Chinese team members as slowing down team discussions (Hybels 2007, p. 277).


Research by Thomas and Inkson (2004, p.27) differentiates between a tight and loose culture. According to the researchers, a tight culture such as China has a homogenous population who are deeply religious, and believes in complying with popular opinion (Hall 1981, p.113). On the contrary, Australia is a loose culture – individuals believe in freedom of speech and association, and has less affinity to religion. This can affect the Australian-Chinese team on the way issues are debated. For example, the Chinese team members way have the tendency to agree with the general opinion even if they have a better solution. This can lead to ‘Group think’ (Hall 1981, p.113). On the other hand, the Chinese team members could view their Australian colleagues as too opinionated and uncompromising (Hybels 2007, p. 277).


Hall & Hall (1990, pp. 14-15) defines Monochronic and Polychronic as the way time is valued by different cultures. Australia and China are monochronic cultures - Time is of an essence to an individual, time is viewed as an asset, punctuality is a virtue and individual’s life activities are carefully organized around time On the contrary, in a Polychronic culture - individuals are multitasking, come late to meetings, and can change plans without notice (Hall & Hall 1990, pp. 14-15). Since the Australian-Chinese team are composed of individual from a monochromic cultural time system, time would be utilised effectively to achieving group outcome (Crossman, Bordia & Bretag 2009, p.442 - 444).


During interpersonal communication, differences exist in the way the Australians and Chinese team members express meanings through non-verbal cues. Fiske (2002, p.2) defines interpersonal communication as a process of social interaction ‘by which one person relates to another, or affects the behaviour, state of mind or emotional response of another, and, of course, vice versa.’ When engaging in interpersonal communication meanings are shared through verbal messages and non-verbal cues. Academics believe that communication is less than 20 percent verbal and 80 percent non verbal (Fiske 2002, p.2). While a verbal message is the word spoken by an individual, nonverbal communication is a message transmitted without words (Phinney & Halstead 2003, p.13). Non-verbal cues include kinesics, para-language, and proxemics (Karsten 2006, p.10).


Karsten (2006, p.10) defines kinesics as body movement, gesture or posture, including eye contact. For example, to the Australian team members looking at someone in the eye during discussion is a sign of confidence and truthfulness, while their Chinese colleagues would consider looking someone in the eye as rude and threatening. Para-language is the tone of voice, speech rate, voice pitch and volume (Karsten 2006, p.10). The Chinese team member speaks with high pitch during conversations while their Australian colleagues speak in low pitch (Fiske 2002, p.2). This difference in pitch could lead to misunderstanding – such as, the high pitch used by the Chinese could be view as aggression by an Australian, and the low pitch used by the Australian could be view as weakness by the Chinese. The Chinese uses more non-verbal elements such as voice, tone, facial expression, and gestures during communication (Eunson 2005, p.468). In contrast, the Australians communicate more by words than non verbal means (Eunson 2005, p.468).


Proxemics is defined as the use of physical space in communication (Garnett & Kouzmin 1997, p.417). In explaining proxemics, Gottlieb (2003, p.178) informs that during interpersonal communication, four distinct distances can be observed. These are: Intimate distance - skin to skin contact to 18 inches apart; Personal distance - from18 inches to about 4 feet apart; Social distance - from 4 to 12 feet out; and Public distance - this ranges from12 feet and outward (Gottlieb 2003, p.178). The use of space during face to face meetings will affect interpersonal communication between the Australian and Chinese team members (Gottlieb 2003, p.178). For a Chinese team member, interpersonal comfort is enhanced by standing/sitting close together within the intimate-personal distance zone during discussions, while the Australian colleagues would feel very uncomfortable within that zone. On the other hand, the Australian team members are comfortable discussing from intimate-personal distance zone. This is because Australians value their privacy (Gottlieb 2003, p.178).


Socio-cultural tradition theorists believe that, culture is produced and reproduced as people engage in cross-cultural/intercultural communication (Crossman, Bordia & Bretag 2009, p.279). Consequently, when the Chinese and Australian team members communicate via face to face and virtual meetings a third culture is created (Lee 2006, p. 253). Virtual communication is facilitated by the internet, intranet or extranet (Crossman, Bordia & Bretag 2009, p.442 - 444). Two distinct attribute of a computer mediated communication is its synchronous and asynchronous nature. (Hybels 2007, p. 277). Synchronous communication is the real time exchange of messages, such as exists in face to face dialogues, telephone conversations, and virtual instant messaging. Asynchronous communication occurs when people are not communicating at the same time, such as in e-mail and online discussions through virtual community platforms (Hybels 2007, p. 277). For the Chinese and Australian team members, virtual meetings will serve as a social levelling strategy to facilitate equal participation in discussions (Hybels 2007, p. 277). The reason is that, the online platform eliminates social status; enables participants to think through their ideas and correct their mistakes; individuals can participate at their own convenient time and place; barriers, stereotypes and biases are minimized (Crossman, Bordia & Bretag 2009, p.442 - 444). Also, during virtual meetings, personal traits such as aggressive, assertive, and suppressive behaviours are eliminated, thereby, allowing the cautious and non-assertive individual to participate in discussions (Hybels 2007, p. 277). In addition, nonverbal cues that lead to misunderstanding during face to face communication are eliminated in virtual meetings, thereby, enhancing the accurate interpretation of messages by team members. Researchers believe that more ideas are generated during CMC meetings than Face to face meetings because diversity is less of a barrier (Hybels 2007, p. 277). On the other hand, Face to Face meetings enhances timely accomplishment of tasks, enhance group synergy and emotional bonding (Hybels 2007, p. 277).


Team spirit is reinforce, as the team composed of individuals from china and Australia develops trust, respect and understanding among themselves (Lee 2006, p.255). Consequently, the team are able to effectively deal with emerging issues and tasks during the forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning stages of the group development (Crossman, Bordia & Bretag 2009, p.494 -495). The storming stage of the team is the periods at which the team experience conflicts and challenges (Ellis & Fisher 1994, pp. 122 -123). Norming stages, according to Ellis & Fisher (1994,p.129 ) is the stage at which the group synergy is harmonized, rules and regulations and team culture has formed. During these stages, members of the team take various roles such as Group task roles, Group maintenance role, and Self-oriented roles. Group task roles help the group to reach goal (Crossman, Bordia & Bretag 2009, p.488). Individuals in these categories are the initiator-contributor, information seeker, information giver, coordinator, orienter, and energizer (Crossman, Bordia & Bretag 2009, p.488). Group-maintenance role are individuals that build group synergy, cohesiveness and harmonious team atmosphere –included are the encourager, harmonizer, gatekeeper, standard setter, group observer and follower (Crossman, Bordia & Bretag 2009, p.489). However, the self-oriented roles lead to group destabilization – this includes the aggressor, blocker and recognition seeker (Crossman, Bordia & Bretag 2009, p.489).


While performing their roles, the Chinese and Australian team members can minimise conflict and increase team cohesiveness by sincerely repudiating stereotypes, prejudices, ethnocentrism, and discrimination (London 2001, p. 46; Lumsden & Lumsden 1997, p 125; Ellis & Fisher 1994, pp. 122 -123). Stereotypes is defined by London (2001, p. 46) to mean an individual’s harmful preconceptions of others which can lead to biases. Overcoming stereotype within a culturally diverse team includes team members having interest in each other’s culture and customs, having an understanding of the differences between the cultures, and developing effective listening skills. The benefit of this is that it facilitates self disclosure which leads to an improved communication, relationship and team outcome (Crossman, Bordia & Bretag 2009, p.498).


In conclusion, this essay has established the fact that cultural diversity provides a competitive advantage to organizations and teams. A team is defined as a group of people united to achieving a specific task. Despite the advantages presented by cultural diversity, a team composed of individual from china and Australia (culturally diverse team or organization) still has fundamental cultural challenges to overcome in order to accomplish group goals. According to communication theorist, these challenges results from the different cultural dimensions and contexts that impact on the culturally diverse team. These cultural contexts and dimensions are - power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, high/low contexts, monochromic/polychromic, and tight/loose cultures. Studies show that different meanings attributed to nonverbal cues also impacts on the culturally diverse team. When the team communicates on face to face or virtual bases, a third culture is developed. As a result, this facilitates cross-cultural/intercultural understanding that bonds the team during the forming, storming , norming, performing and adjourning stages of the group development. Finally, effective interpersonal skills and cross cultural understanding helps the team to overcome the cultural issues affecting them, thereby, enabling them to use their diversity to improve the quality of team decisions and increase team outcome.





References:

AAT 2009, ‘Corporate publications: Workplace diversity plan 2003 -2006’, Administrative Appeals Tribunal online resources, viewed 5 May 2009, <http://www.aat.gov.au/CorporatePublications/WorkplaceDiversityPlan.htm>

Ellis, D G & Fisher, B A 1994, ‘ Behavioral Standards: Roles and Norms’, Small Group Decision Making – Communication and the Group Process, 4th edn., McGraw-Hill, USA.

Eunson, B 2005 Communicating in the 21st century, Wiley, Milton, Qld

Fiske, J 2002, Introduction to communication studies, 2nd edn., Routledge, New York, p.2

Garnett, JL & Kouzmin, A 1997, Handbook of administrative communication, CRC Press, New York, p. 417

Google 2009, ‘Search tomorrow’s web, today!’, Google gDayTM with MATETM Beta , viewed 12 April 2009, < http://www.google.com.au/intl/en/gday/index.html>not in essay

Hall, E1981 Beyond Culture, Anchor Books, New York.

Helft, M & Markoff, J 2007, ‘Google Enters the Wireless World’, New York Times, 7 Nov. 2007, New York, pp.1-4

Hofstede, G 1980 ‘Motivation, leadership, and organization; do American theories apply abroad?’, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 9, no.1, pp 42-45

Horwitz, SK & Horwitz, IB 2007, ‘Team demography the effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analytic review of team demography’, the Journal of Management, Sage, London

Karsten, MF 2006, Gender, race, and ethnicity in the workplace: issues and challenges for today's organizations, Greenwood Publishing Group, London, vol.3, p.10

Lee, S 2006, ‘Somewhere in the middle: The measurement of third culture’, Journal of Intercultural Communication research, 35(3), 253-264.

London, M 2001, ‘Stereotypes’, How people evaluate others in organizations, Psychology Press, London

Lumsdem, G & Lumsden D 1997, ‘The “Team” in Teamwork: Bringing Individuals Together’, Communicating in Groups and Teams – Sharing Leadership, 2nd edn, Wadsworth Publishing, USA.

Phinney, DJ & Halstead, JH 2003, ‘Verbal and non verbal communication’, Delmar's Dental Assisting: A Comprehensive Approach, 2nd Edn., Cengage Learning, Kentucky, p. 13

June 6, 2009 | 4:38 AM Comments  0 comments
Tags:




John Nze-Bertram's Profile

John Nze-Bertram's Friends


Latest Posts
Closing soon: 2010...
CHANGE
Management – it’s...
Nonverbal cues and...
ISSUES AND BENEFITS OF...

Monthly Archive
June 2009
October 2009

Change Language


Filter By Type
Events
Topics

Friends
AfricanCherub!
Azola Goqwana
Caitlin Leigh Chandler
CM
David
DLE
dot
Edgar Dearn Makona
Elizabeth
Hansulrich John Gerber
INCON
Ja Klar
Jamal
jennah
Joel
Jose M. de Olivares
KLAAS KARABO MONATISI
Luke Lieberman
Michael Furdyk
Missy Claire
Missy Claire
Moses 2005
MUBARIK
oseeresidor
prieten47
Roland Grabner
Roy Kramp
Sean Amos
Shaker Hasanat
Soloviova

Links
World Youth Empowerment...


6189 views
Important Disclaimer