“The globalization of markets and information networks has made consumption patterns and culture more uniform. Two developments are seemingly moving toward the opposite directions: an increasing uniformity of every-day culture on the one hand, and a drive to retain elements of individual cultures, on the other (University Witten/Herdecke, International society for Diversity Management (IDM), 2006)”. The IDM claims that social and organizational change is accelerating exponentially. There is a constantly search of identities through experience the differences. “Global cultures” in contemporary societies are constantly being challenged to meet this demand. Recognition and respect are requested to meet this differences. To face these requirements the following paper will discuss the meaning of intercultural competence. To underline the development of intercultural research the author will discuss the findings of Hofstede. Second the discussion will lead to the more contemporary aspects of intercultural competence such as Milton Bennett. In his theories about communication he points out the core set for global leadership in cross cultural contact. This chapter will focus especially on intercultural communication. The conclusion will lead the reader to future aspects of diversity management. “The world is full of confrontations between people, groups and nations who think, feel, and act differently (Hofstede, 1991, p.3).” Following the news and the establishing conflicts with the Arabian world and the West, his statement is still actual. Already in 1991 he postulates the demand of cooperation for solution of common problems like ecological, economical, military, hygienic, and meteorological developments which do not stop at national or regional borders (ibid.).
Table of Contents
Preface
Intercultural Cooperation – G. Hofstede
Definition of Culture
Cultural Relativisms
Four Dimensions
Theoretical Foundations of Intercultural Communication – M. Bennett
Paradigms
Principles
The Five Frameworks
Experience of Difference
Discussion
Conclusion
Objectives and Thematic Focus
This paper explores the essence of intercultural competence by contrasting the foundational research of Geert Hofstede with the contemporary, constructivist approaches of Milton Bennett to provide a holistic framework for managing diversity in modern organizations.
- Comparison of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and Bennett’s intercultural sensitivity models.
- Theoretical analysis of cultural paradigms (Positivist, Relativist, Constructivist).
- Examination of the "Onion diagram" and manifestations of cultural depth.
- The role of communication styles and cognitive frameworks in cross-cultural interactions.
- Practical application of diversity management in professional environments.
Excerpt from the Book
Experience of Difference
In the state of denial it is impossible to experience differences. Different behaviour is a deficiency on intelligence or personality. It is characterized be disinterest of cultural difference or avoidance which means separation from cultural difference and yields to undifferentiated broad categories (foreigner, Asian). The behaviour is conservative and seeking familiar patterns. This means for organisations no systematic recruitment of diverse workforce and loosing diversity as a resource.
The status of defence is to experience cultural in a polarized way. The own culture is exalted and the other culture is denigrated. Other cultures are threatening or underdeveloped and need help. In organisations this leads to overconfidence or arrogance. Other cultures may be seen as obstacle and in consequence have to be avoided. Combativeness may damage partnerships or customer relations.
At the status of minimization of difference has given way to a recognition of the common humanity of all people regardless to culture (“We are the world”). The difficult work to recognize one own cultural patterns and understanding others and eventually making adoptions is avoided. This status is still ethnocentric. Organisations will overestimate their sensitivity to diversity, the recruitment will be successful followed by a pressure for cultural conformity and lead to a loss of diversity as a resource. Bennett calls this cultural imperialism which leads to international antagonisms.
Summary of Chapters
Preface: The author introduces the necessity of intercultural competence due to globalization and outlines the core theoretical sources, specifically Hofstede and Bennett.
Intercultural Cooperation – G. Hofstede: This chapter defines culture through Hofstede's lens, discussing collective mental programming, cultural relativism, and his four primary dimensions of national culture.
Theoretical Foundations of Intercultural Communication – M. Bennett: This chapter contrasts Hofstede's work with Bennett’s constructivist paradigm, focusing on intercultural sensitivity, communication styles, and the development of an intercultural mindset.
Discussion: The author critically evaluates the strengths and limitations of both authors, suggesting that Hofstede provides the "knowledge" while Bennett provides the "skills" needed for effective implementation.
Conclusion: The paper summarizes the necessity of fostering respect for diversity within organizations and emphasizes the future requirement for robust diversity management tools.
Keywords
Intercultural Competence, Intercultural Cooperation, Cultural Dimensions, Geert Hofstede, Milton Bennett, Diversity Management, Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, Cultural Relativism, Communication Styles, Constructivist Paradigm, Global Leadership.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines the concept of intercultural competence, exploring how individuals and organizations can navigate cultural differences by integrating theoretical knowledge with practical communication strategies.
Which theorists are central to this study?
The study primarily contrasts the work of Geert Hofstede, known for his research on cultural dimensions, with the work of Milton Bennett, who focuses on intercultural sensitivity and constructivist communication theory.
What is the core objective of the research?
The goal is to demonstrate how combining Hofstede’s cultural mapping with Bennett’s skill-based frameworks leads to more effective diversity management in modern professional settings.
Which scientific method is applied?
The paper uses a comparative literature review and theoretical analysis to synthesize existing models of cultural interaction and apply them to organizational contexts.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main sections cover the definition of culture, cultural relativism, Hofstede’s dimensions (power distance, individualism, etc.), Bennett’s paradigm shifts, and his Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS).
Which terms best characterize this work?
Key terms include intercultural sensitivity, cultural relativism, constructivist paradigm, and diversity management.
How does the author explain the difference between the "desired" and "desirable"?
The author uses Hofstede’s IBM study to differentiate between what employees feel society expects (desirable) and what they personally prefer in a manager (desired).
What does Bennett mean by "Experience of Difference"?
It refers to a developmental model (DMIS) ranging from ethnocentric stages (denial, defense, minimization) to ethnorelative stages (acceptance, adaptation, integration) that describe how people process cultural diversity.
- Quote paper
- Master Science Kirsten Herrmann (Author), 2006, Intercultural cooperation - Intercultural communication, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/57126
