Obstacles to Achieving Cross-Cultural Understanding

The potential for conflict arises whenever an organization or profession tries to apply practices based on their own values to a host workplace or market with different cultural norms. For example, restrictive policies about taking off time for family emergencies may be the source of conflict in a collectivist culture that values family ties, even ties to what would be considered extended family --- and prioritizes family obligations. A promotion policy that emphasizes individual merit may present difficulties for managers used to rewarding employees with family connections. Conflict can arise from differences in professional as well as social values. An HR department that values collaboration and process may have problems when it tries to provide service to a results-oriented, hierarchical operation or IT department.

The challenge for HR is to better understand each of the members and stakeholders of their own multicultural organizations and to foster interaction, understanding, and appreciation of diverse views and opinions. Nancy Adler (in International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior) and other analysts list four obstacles that HR may face in trying to achieve understanding in multicultural organizations.

·         Ethnocentrism and parochialism. Adler characterizes ethnocentrism as "our way is the best way and we are really not interested in other ways of reaching a goal." Parochialism goes even further, asserting that "there is only one way to solve a problem or reach a goal." While both are limited world views, it is possible to alter ethnocentric views with time, experience, and training. Parochialism is such a rigid mindset that it may not easily be malleable.

·         Cultural stereotypes. While certain words are used to describe cultural value dimensions and characteristics, these words should not be judgmental or contain negative connotations. A particular culture's approach to time can be described without degenerating into judgmental phrases such as "lazy" or "undependable." It is also valuable to remember that cultural descriptive terms characterize group behaviors, but that not all individuals within a group necessarily conform to these norms.

·         Cultural determinism. "The culture made me do it." This perspective basically absolves individuals of any responsibility for their actions. Global- HR professionals will often hear from managers in other countries that something cannot be done because of the local culture. This may call for further discussion about the supposed obstacles. In some cases, they may not exist, and in others, the obstacles may not really be cultural resistance to the practice but to how the practice is being implemented.

·         Cultural relativism. Cultural relativism holds that because cultures vary so widely and greatly, everything is relative. There are no absolutes; everything varies based on the situation and the cultural perspective. In fact, while cultural differences are often considerable, global HR can refer to a reasonable set of absolutes based on honesty, decency, and personal integrity that should pertain across cultures.