Understand Thy Neighbor
In a world trending toward greater acrimony and isolation, how do we effectively tolerate, embrace, and even cherish diversity?
In a world clearly trending toward greater acrimony and isolation, how do we most effectively tolerate, embrace, and even cherish diversity? Over the past year, I have seen a number of organizations struggle because of the cultural differences across teams, projects, and hierarchical relationships. And in most cases, these challenges are amplified by a growing societal mindset that deemphasizes adaptability and understanding. So how do we convert our worldview from one in which we see others as barriers to our success to one that finds synergies in diversity?
A basic understanding of cultural differences provides a lens through which we can begin the process of understanding others and enables us to work more effectively across cultures. Let’s begin by suggesting that all cultures are on a continuum from “low context” to “high context,” and “context” can be defined by five dimensions: association, interaction, territoriality, temporality, and learning.
Association: This dimension defines a person’s view of relationships and social structure.
High context: Relationships depend on trust, longevity, and stability with clear inner/outer circles. Work gets done as a consequence of strong relationships and group process. Typically these people believe in centralized authority with responsibility/accountability at the top, but the leader works for the benefit of the whole group.
Low context: Relationships begin and end quickly with no clear strength of connection beyond the shared pursuit of a project goal. People are more focused on individual achievement and the social structure is decentralized.
Interaction: This dimension addresses verbal/non-verbal communication style.
High context: Communication is seen as an art form and there is a high use of non-verbal and implied elements. Disagreement is personalized, and typically progress cannot be made while there is unresolved conflict.
Low context: Verbalization is explicit and direct. Communication is a way of exchanging information to develop rational solutions, not personal ones.
Territoriality: This dimension focuses on the physical-space relationship between people but could also refer to the perception of roles, responsibilities, and praise.
High context: People are more willing to share space and project “ownership” as they value the communal nature of relationships.
Low context: Space is compartmentalized and private. Isolation and sole “ownership” are valued.
Temporality: This dimension is often the most troublesome for organizations as it addresses the different perceptions of time.
High context: Time is seen as fluid, and timelines are not a priority when in conflict with the personal or psychological needs of others. Change is slow and highly dependent on process and relationship development.
Low context: There is a strict adherence to timelines, efficiency, and results. Time is seen as a commodity to be spent or saved.
Learning: This dimension describes the way individuals/groups synthesize information.
High context: Thinking is deductive and focused on accuracy. Learning is typically through group observation, modeling, demonstration, and practice.
Low context: Learning occurs through explicit directions and task-orientation. Speed is valued, and learning is expected to occur individually.
Though individuals may perceive time, relationships, communication, and goals very differently, the reality is that progress depends on our ability to see diversity as a source of opportunities and not obstacles. In a world that currently seems preoccupied with creating separations between people, let’s concentrate instead on nurturing connection and understanding, and remember that success or failure is inevitably a function of context.
Note: If you are interested in improving the relationships, team productivity, and cross-cultural interaction in your organization, contact Panaviv to discuss various workshops and programs.