cross-cultural competence: understanding challenges of instilling cross-cultural intelligence in the workforce

Author: Iloka Benneth Chiemelie

Published: 19th of March 2014

Introduction

In the modern business environment, increased globalization and internationalization of firms now means that companies can no longer rely on the business settings defined in the context of their own culture. This is because people are different across cultures and doing business in different cultures entails understanding each culture as it is. On that ground, this research is developed to understand what cross-cultural competence is all about and the challenges that can occur when instilling cultural intelligence in a given workforce.

Identify the definition of cross-cultural competence

In a clear cut definition, cross-cultural intelligence / competence (CQ) can be defined as the process of acquiring necessary cultural awareness of one’s self and other people; recognizing the ethnocentrism between cultures; understanding the consequences that can emerge from cultural assumptions; and learning new ways that can be used to promote effective working relations, business styles across cultures in the world, differences in culture with respect to communication styles, and the impact that virtual communication can have on intercultural understanding (Goodman, 2012). It can also be defined as understanding the known major tendencies in culture like: decision making and communication styles that do have the potential of repeatedly causing misunderstanding and mistrust in intercultural or international business (Goodman, 2012).

Basically, the notion presented from the above definition is that cross-cultural difference is all about knowing that there are differences between one’s culture and that of other people, as well as filling such gap with a high level of cultural-consciousness.

Identify and evaluate the challenges that can occur when attempting to instill cultural intelligence into the workforce.

In building an international team, a number of factor can influence the success of integrating inter-cultural competence within the team because each member views the company based on their own culture and differences in matters such as those discussed below influence such success.

Differences in negotiation style – because of the differences in negotiation style (Confucian friendship bases (Hofstede, 1997), instilling intercultural competence can be difficult as each member fights to win over the other.

Communication style – differences in communication style as measured with level of criticism obtainable and endurable within each culture (Hofstede, 1997) can also can issues when instilling cultural competence and it needs to be weighed carefully by team members in order to minimize the potential of misunderstanding.

Differences in perception and decision making – while some culture are profit oriented (USA), others are friendship and long-term partnership oriented (China); and while some cultures are high in uncertainty avoidance (Russia), other are low in uncertainty avoidance (Germany) (Hofstede, 1997). Thus, differences in cultural perception and decision-making do play significant role when it comes to instilling cultural competence.

Besides those discussed above, other issues come in the form of leadership, role, reaching agreement and management style; all making the process of instilling cultural competence very difficult. Thus, it is important that the management understands such differences as well as align them with necessary solution in order to reduce the potential negative effects they can have in instilling cultural competence within the team.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, cultural competence has been defined as gaining an understanding of one’s culture and also the differences between such culture and other people’s culture in order to eliminate potentials for misunderstanding. However, instill cultural competence is not easy but the prevalence of virtual workforce has increase reduction of cultural related issues in the workforce (Casson and Lundan, 1999; Child and Yan, 2001; DiMaggo and Powell, 1983; Heuer et al., 1999; Hofstede, 1997; McGrath et al., 1992; Ralston et al., 1997; Webber, 1969) because people can work from any part of the world and independent of others.

References

Casson, M., and Lundan, M., (1999). Explaining international differences in economic institutions. International Studies of Management & Organization 29 (2), 25– 42.

Child, J., and Yan, Y., (2001). National and transnational effects in international business: indications from Sino-foreign JVs. Management International Review 41 (1), 53– 75.

DiMaggio, P., and Powell, W., (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48, 147– 160.

Goodman, N. (2012) 'Training for cultural competence', Industrial and Commercial Training, 44 (1), pp.47 - 50.

Heuer, M., Cummings, J., and Hutabarat, W., (1999). Culture stability or change among managers in Indonesia. Journal of International Business Studies 30 (3), 599– 611.

Hofstede, G., (1997). Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York.

McGrath, R., MacMillan, I., Yang, E., and Tsai, W., (1992). Does culture endure, or is it malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development. Journal of Business Venturing 7, 441– 458.

Ralston, D., Holt, D., Terpstra, R., and Kai-Cheng, Y., (1997). The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the U.S., Russia, Japan and China. Journal of International Business Studies 28, 177–207.

Webber, R.A., (1969). Convergence or divergence? Columbia Journal of World Business 4 (3), 75– 83.