Blogger #1 Claribel Garcia

By taking this course, I have changed my perspective about communication from being a linear, transactional exchange of information (A speaks to B) based on the clarity of words alone to recognizing that communication is much more than that. Communication is multi-dimensional and complex; it is comprised of a complex set of elements, including cultural conditioning, psychological defense systems, and social dynamics. When it comes to bridging a divide between cultures or collaborating on a project with high stakes, being successful relies heavily on your ability to interpret the unwritten rules of the environment in which you are working. This reflection will be an opportunity for me to honestly assess how understanding these principles has changed my personal behaviors, my challenges, and how I approach working with others. One of the major insights I gained from the unit about Intercultural Communication was the understanding that culture is like a subconscious software program that runs constantly in the background of our minds, establishing perceptions of what is courteous, fair, or logical without our conscious realization or understanding. While working together to prepare as a group, we touched upon the dichotomy between idealistic values and real-world challenges that exist simultaneously in every culture.

In addition, I originally believed that intercultural communication only occurred when traveling to another country or working diplomatically across borders. Now I see that our local communities are filled with cultural intersections on a day-to-day basis. We exist within a broader dominant culture that defines the overall social expectations of our society as a whole, while simultaneously existing within various co-cultures defined by different markers such as age, location, religion, or profession. Understanding these differences has made me hyper-aware of how often I code-switch my usage of vocabulary, vocal tone, and body language based on whether I am joking with childhood friends versus presenting a project proposal to a professor. This level of adaptability lends evidence to the idea that our cultural identities are anything but rigid; they are fluid, evolving, and based strongly on situational context.

My exploration through specific cultural dimensions illuminated why I experienced so much disconnect during collaborative work in the past. I have a predominantly individualistic mindset; I place great value on the idea of autonomous decision-making, the accountability of my actions, and exclusive recognition for my own individual efforts. Because of that, I have often been frustrated by my collaborators when they gravitate towards a collectivist mindset where they place more value on the success of the team as a whole versus ensuring that every individual is recognized for their contribution. I mistakenly viewed their approaches as a lack of motivation, instead of knowing they were still committed.

Low-Context vs. High-Context: I will usually use low-context communication, where I attempt to communicate clearly with direct words that have no room for interpretation. Low-context communication works only when working with someone from a high-context culture, where there are many verbal and non-verbal cues based on situations that I might not recognize. In addition, working with others from high-context cultures taught me that the meaning of what I have stated is sometimes derived from more than just what was said.

Chronemics (Time Orientation): I am a strict time user, or monochronic. I live by my calendar, considering it a calling Card from Heaven, and I view tardiness as a direct display of disrespect. Upon learning that people from polychronic cultures view the use of time as very flexible and responsive to human relationships, I have developed an increased amount of patience with the communication styles of others in a multicultural work setting.

Uncertainty Avoidance & Power Distance: I had always assumed that I had a relatively low level of uncertainty avoidance because I am able to tolerate and quickly adjust to sudden changes in my plans. This is opposed to my team members, who are much more risk-averse, highly intentional, and require a systematic, step-by-step approach to achieve their level of comfort. In addition, we work in a team-based, democratic class setting, where it would be encouraged to challenge new ideas based on just that, whereas it would not be acceptable to challenge ideas in a high-power distance work setting based solely upon the hierarchical structures in respect of a power relationship.

To make these disparate elements of diversity work together, we must work together to rid ourselves of ethnocentrism, which is the thought of being superior to others.

When we moved from examining the large cultural context to exploring the dynamics between groups, we began to see that each independent team creates its own unique micro-culture over time through group interactions. The bond between groups requires much more than simply having shared email conversations and randomized rosters; the groups must also have a shared sense of mutual belonging and a clear and common purpose of driving towards a target. Throughout our lives, we participate in many different types of groups. The initial group is our family, which can exhibit very different styles of communication with each other. Families can use a range of protective communication patterns, from strict obedience or extreme conformity enforced by an authority figure to a consensual communication pattern, where there is open and honest communication encouraged among all members of the family, regardless of where that person sits in the family's hierarchy. Today, most of the groups that I collaborate with exist virtually. Working in digital environments has demonstrated to me that asynchronous communications(e.g., receiving late email responses or sending a text at 2:00 AM) can create a level of formality with the etiquette of communication. Without the use of additional communicative tools such as tone, body language, or other forms of expression, a neutral statement can be easily misinterpreted as a passive-aggressive confrontation. The fundamental component of a successful group is interdependence. Every member of a group shares a mutual interdependence with every other member of the group, which means that the group's success and/or failure are contingent on the actions of every member; if one member fails to complete their part of the group task, the overall success of the group will be compromised. Once the group has established its level of interdependence, established both explicit and implicit norms for behaviour within the group, and developed a high level of trust, the group has achieved a high level of synergy. The highest and most productive level of collaborative work is achieved through synergy.

To achieve this synergy, it is necessary to traverse through the standard phases of group development: 1. Forming: the first phase of a group is characterized by being guardedly polite, having small talk that is based on 'safe' topics, and feeling that all members of the group are nervous about each other's reactions while they are getting to know each other. 2. Storming The next phase is known as the 'storming' phase, which is characterized by the loss of superficial politeness, emergence of debate about the intellectual concepts that were previously 'disagreeable' to the group as a whole, and emergence of personality differences existing (or sometimes created) within the group. An extremely important aspect to consider during this period is to protect the group from 'groupthink' - the phenomenon where individuals in a group withhold their honest thoughts and opinions to appear agreeable and non-confrontational, which results in poor, untested decisions. 3. Norming The third phase is called the 'norming phase' of group behavior. It is during this phase that constructive conflict is addressed; however, a group's desire for constructive unity has been agreed upon (and grounded), and a rhythm of collaboration has been established. 4. Performing: The group creates products of high quality, fulfilling the group's purpose, as well as functioning effectively as a team. 5. Adjourning/Transforming: This is the final phase of forming a group, where the group concludes its task and has the option of disbanding or moving to a new goal. Based on my understanding of these concepts, I transitioned from looking at conflict in groups through my first paradigm or viewpoint of thinking that a healthy group meant no conflict to now seeing that 'issue-related conflicts' can be extremely helpful. It shows me that members of the group are debating issues, strategies, and facts related to their creative approaches in identifying the best solutions.

Structured execution and leadership are the last pieces of the puzzle in effective communication. Throughout this course, I have learned that the term “leader” does not refer solely to the person who holds a particular title or has a formal designation of leadership, but rather includes informal emergent leaders who rise to the occasion and provide guidance and support to a team in times of unexpected challenges and obstacles. This concept of emergent leadership is a perfect fit for the philosophy of shared leadership in that an effective team distributes responsibility among its members based on individual strengths rather than relying on one person to take charge. During this process, I have become aware of how these different roles play out in real-time situations: Task Leadership Roles: I have always felt at home in performing these functions and feel it is my strength to gather, analyze, and synthesize raw data on behalf of a project. Procedural Leadership Roles: I have also felt comfortable in being responsible for the logistics related to the functioning of the group, whether it is creating agenda items and a timeline or acting as the expediter to prevent the group from becoming stagnant during meetings. Maintenance Leadership Roles: I do not feel as confident in fulfilling my duty as a harmonizer and encourager, and I need to be more intentional about doing so. I want all members of the group to have the opportunity to speak and feel comfortable with contributing to the group, particularly when they are less vocal than others, and I also want to help keep the group feeling good about itself.

When taking action to commit to a group decision, to base it solely on instinct-based intuition, or simply holding an unstructured discussion, is a time-waster. Establishing a structured process, such as the six-step systematic problem-solving process, will be of great benefit to a group by establishing a road map to use when executing the agreement. 1. Clarify and Define the Problem. The group will clarify and define the problem in a concise manner as a fact, value, or policy. 2. Analyze the Problem. The group will analyze the historical context, the root cause(s), and the larger impacts on society of the problem. 3. Establish the Criteria for Evaluating Potential Solutions. The group will establish its criteria (both negotiable and non-negotiable) for evaluating potential solutions, such as budget and time constraints, before examining any potential solutions. 4. Generate Alternative Solutions. Through brainstorming that lacks judgment and allows for expansive thought, creative expression can occur. 5. Evaluate Potential Solutions Against the Criteria Established in Step 3. Use constructive consensus or an orderly voting process to determine the most acceptable solution. 6. Implementation and Evaluation of the Chosen Solution. In this step, you evaluate the solution chosen through both qualitative and quantitative measures of its success after it has been put into effect. In conclusion, it doesn't matter if the presentation is a verbal brief, a comprehensive written report, or a live panel presentation; how well we can express our ideas makes our idea just as much a part of how effective we are in delivering them.