I don't know if it's because we have all come a long way since the beginning of the semester, but after reading and negotiating the first half, I had a feeling that this simulation resembled the real-life Toyota/GM JV that sprung out of their relationship.
Probably out of all the simulations, I performed the most poorly in this one.
Instead of acting as much as my culture as I should have, I wanted more to get to a solution, and my own way of negotiating and way of acting came through.
I remember after one of our simulations, Dr. Osland stated that, although we each had cards with our culture's description on them and the tools to "become" a new culture, we would bring our own beliefs, traits, and personalities to the role.
However, this time I completely failed to act the part and acted as ALICEA, and sadly I feel maybe that was a part of the failure of the simulation.
Another interesting thing happened--I don't know if the sheets we got were actually denoting the facts, or just the perceptions' that our culture felt were the facts. Although I did not want to bring up the issue of our company's technology with the "seeing androids" (that was supposed to be our trump card, and a heavy bargaining tool), one of my associates brought it out right away and kept pushing for what we wanted with that ONE bargaining chip. To my surprise, the other side did not want it and actually kept insisting that it was not important--that it was not something they were seeking.
Well that left US (or maybe just ME) stumped. If that was not what they wanted, why did our description on them say they did? Was that another misunderstanding due to miscommunicated cues from our culture or was it just something they were hiding till the end?
The other side kept insisting they didn't want it, and that was when I began to think that the descriptions we got of the other side were just the perceived understanding our side has of the other and not the actual truth.
- - - - -
I wish they had something similar in companies, or offered this class every semester, because I feel like there is still so much left to learn.
Monday, December 13, 2010
American/X-ian
The toughest thing about this simulation was the amount of time we were given.
I believed me and my partner were making some headway and then I was stumped. And we agreed he wouldn't talk!
Getting my evaluations back (from observers and X-ian participants) didn't necessarily tell me something I already knew, but the inherent "WHAT AM I MISSING" tapping away at the back of my head was appeased. I guess I am stubborn. One thing I lacked was the ability to change tactics. I was never really aware I had this problem--even though really I think I should re-phrase and say I was never really aware this was a problem.
Meaning: as simple and as "common sense" as it seems, I never thought about that before. It was staring me right in the face.
I was glad when me and my partner made the discovery that the female was head and that she was educated and we learned about the Garden Festival, but then we hit a wall.
Or I should say, I did.
Overall, this activity (especially with the evaluation afterward) helped me a bit when I had to read to some elementary school children in a largely Latino district of San Jose's school system (recently). Partway through my panic of not succeeding with the children, I took a deep breath and remembered: that if something isn't working, try something else!
This helped me a lot during that interaction.
And I know the only way to succeed with this is to practice, practice, practice!!
And this being one of our last simulations--I really have appreciated these simulations because they have been providing an insight to my character--this (personality/character) is something we won't know about ourselves until we've actually experienced it. Reading and theorizing is nothing compared to actual practice. Because then we realize what we need to work on should the occasion ever arise.
I believed me and my partner were making some headway and then I was stumped. And we agreed he wouldn't talk!
Getting my evaluations back (from observers and X-ian participants) didn't necessarily tell me something I already knew, but the inherent "WHAT AM I MISSING" tapping away at the back of my head was appeased. I guess I am stubborn. One thing I lacked was the ability to change tactics. I was never really aware I had this problem--even though really I think I should re-phrase and say I was never really aware this was a problem.
Meaning: as simple and as "common sense" as it seems, I never thought about that before. It was staring me right in the face.
I was glad when me and my partner made the discovery that the female was head and that she was educated and we learned about the Garden Festival, but then we hit a wall.
Or I should say, I did.
Overall, this activity (especially with the evaluation afterward) helped me a bit when I had to read to some elementary school children in a largely Latino district of San Jose's school system (recently). Partway through my panic of not succeeding with the children, I took a deep breath and remembered: that if something isn't working, try something else!
This helped me a lot during that interaction.
And I know the only way to succeed with this is to practice, practice, practice!!
And this being one of our last simulations--I really have appreciated these simulations because they have been providing an insight to my character--this (personality/character) is something we won't know about ourselves until we've actually experienced it. Reading and theorizing is nothing compared to actual practice. Because then we realize what we need to work on should the occasion ever arise.
Friday, December 3, 2010
ARACRUZ CELLULOSE SIMULATION
What did you lear from the simulation?
From the simulation, I learned that in order to be an effective leader, it does not matter whether it be a local or global leader, one must be open minded and culturally aware. In order to present ones ideas and solutions, one has to consider and outweigh the greater good for all. One cannot be biased or selfish. I also learned that every party has to come to a common ground and alternative in order to proceed further and into the future. Another interesting fact which I learned is that not all documentation holds in the court of law. Finally, working with and wanting all parties to come to an agreement is easier said than done for each party wants to benefit and not be a loser.
What went well in your group and stakeholder dialogue?
The biggest element that facilitated the dialogue and made the group work well was respect. Everyone was respectful towards each other. This allowed a floor for everyone to voice their opinion, values and intentions. This resulted in a smoother transition from problem to solution.
How could your group have been more effective?
Perhaps if people were a bit more aggressive or passionate for their resolution, this activity could have been more challenging and effective.
From the simulation, I learned that in order to be an effective leader, it does not matter whether it be a local or global leader, one must be open minded and culturally aware. In order to present ones ideas and solutions, one has to consider and outweigh the greater good for all. One cannot be biased or selfish. I also learned that every party has to come to a common ground and alternative in order to proceed further and into the future. Another interesting fact which I learned is that not all documentation holds in the court of law. Finally, working with and wanting all parties to come to an agreement is easier said than done for each party wants to benefit and not be a loser.
What went well in your group and stakeholder dialogue?
The biggest element that facilitated the dialogue and made the group work well was respect. Everyone was respectful towards each other. This allowed a floor for everyone to voice their opinion, values and intentions. This resulted in a smoother transition from problem to solution.
How could your group have been more effective?
Perhaps if people were a bit more aggressive or passionate for their resolution, this activity could have been more challenging and effective.
GLOBESMART
My GLOBESMART scores seem ok. For myself results, I believe they are somewhat accurate. I do not agree with the outcome of being indirect, I consider myself to be upfront and direct with my intentions, goals, expressions and solutions to dilemmas. In comparison to the results of Mexico and USA, I was a bit taken back by the fact that I classified more towards the Mexico than USA results. I say this because I have only lived 6 years out of my 24 years of life in Mexico. I was expecting to leaning to the USA results. I do not think my grandparents have identical profile as I do. However, I do believe that on some aspects we may have similar outcome and profile. My maternal grandfather and I share the profile to be risk takers and indirect, according to the results. We share the element of risk takers because we both aspire for greatness and because with big risk comes bigger rewards. NO, I am not a complete member of my culture, my culture being Mexican. In some aspect, I am a member of my culture; these aspects being respectful, loyal and indirect. The aspect were I do not relate to my culture, as evident from the results, is of long-term, risk taker and being independent.
GCI
I think the Global Competencies Inventory was a great exercise that helped me understand my self-better.
The result
I found the result very interesting, I liked how the way it was divided into categories. For the most part my result was in the high range but what surprised me was the fact that I am in a low category for inclusiveness. The reason is that since I was twelve years old I been traveling and adapting new cultures and I thought I was more accepting. One of my survival techniques was being able to find something in common with different culture, so when I found out the result being low on inclusiveness categories it took me by surprise. I have been able to adapt and accept new culture and people. I was surprised to find out that the result was low.
Learning
I learn that when we are trying to be intercultural competent we have to be trained and learn about ourselves. The reason being is that when we learn to learn or get trained we will find our strength and weakness. Sometimes we might think we are competent however in my opinion we need a checkpoint to remind us how to be more intercultural competent. In my case I thought I was open-minded for different people and situation but according to the test I am not. So my plan is to learn more about my self be intercultural competent.
GCI
GCI
The GCI was an extensive assessment of questions which took longer than I anticipated. The results from the GCI do in par of who I am to an extent. The Perception Management results classified me as an overall Low performer. However, I do not see myself as demonstrating a low level of effectiveness in regards to Management Perception. I had anticipated classifying in the moderate category. As far as Relationship Management, my results are accurate. I am a very secure, laid back and secure person. Therefore, classifying under the moderate and high category for Relationship Management is of no surprise. As far as Self-Management, the results are pretty much fair. However, I was surprise when I received a low grading for Optimism and Stress Management. Being that I have multiple tasks going on at the same time and am extremely occupied, I have an optimistic view of life and the outcomes of my work. Also, I have a clear and planned out process during times of stress so it was a shock to discover that I received a low grading for Stress Management.
The most significant lesson that I have learned from this instrument is that I have to do a better task in translating my intentions and goals into an actual outcome. A great example is implementing and executing my stress management plan in order to reduce my stress level. Also, the most important lesson that I learned was that for Perception of Management. Because I was under the assumption that Management is supposed to be competent and I had no detrimental experience to oppose this ideal, my low results of Perception Management supported this. However, after unprecedented and needlessly changes in my work environment, I no longer have emotions or thought that relate to the results of those expressed in my GCI for Perception of Management.
According to this instrument, my weaknesses consist of Optimism, Stress Management, Interpersonal Engagement, and majority of Perception Management. All other categories are my strengths.
I honestly believe and know that the dimension that I need to develop more to become more effective at work and at school is to be consistent. I need to be more consistent with my ideas and being on top of all that is happening, whether it be school work or work of my career. I tend to let time fly by and because I have the capacity to think well on my toes and perform well during crunch time, I leave things to the last possible minute or near ending time. I believe this creates stress in my life. Perhaps if I become more consistent with time management, I can actually perform above my occurring stages and be stress free.
The GCI was an extensive assessment of questions which took longer than I anticipated. The results from the GCI do in par of who I am to an extent. The Perception Management results classified me as an overall Low performer. However, I do not see myself as demonstrating a low level of effectiveness in regards to Management Perception. I had anticipated classifying in the moderate category. As far as Relationship Management, my results are accurate. I am a very secure, laid back and secure person. Therefore, classifying under the moderate and high category for Relationship Management is of no surprise. As far as Self-Management, the results are pretty much fair. However, I was surprise when I received a low grading for Optimism and Stress Management. Being that I have multiple tasks going on at the same time and am extremely occupied, I have an optimistic view of life and the outcomes of my work. Also, I have a clear and planned out process during times of stress so it was a shock to discover that I received a low grading for Stress Management.
The most significant lesson that I have learned from this instrument is that I have to do a better task in translating my intentions and goals into an actual outcome. A great example is implementing and executing my stress management plan in order to reduce my stress level. Also, the most important lesson that I learned was that for Perception of Management. Because I was under the assumption that Management is supposed to be competent and I had no detrimental experience to oppose this ideal, my low results of Perception Management supported this. However, after unprecedented and needlessly changes in my work environment, I no longer have emotions or thought that relate to the results of those expressed in my GCI for Perception of Management.
According to this instrument, my weaknesses consist of Optimism, Stress Management, Interpersonal Engagement, and majority of Perception Management. All other categories are my strengths.
I honestly believe and know that the dimension that I need to develop more to become more effective at work and at school is to be consistent. I need to be more consistent with my ideas and being on top of all that is happening, whether it be school work or work of my career. I tend to let time fly by and because I have the capacity to think well on my toes and perform well during crunch time, I leave things to the last possible minute or near ending time. I believe this creates stress in my life. Perhaps if I become more consistent with time management, I can actually perform above my occurring stages and be stress free.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Globsmart
My globesmart scores were pretty valid and while taking the survey I predicted they would be. For the independent vs interdependent dimension I was placed in the dead middle of the spectrum which is quite precise because I am very independent when it comes to handling my school, work, and social life and I can also work in teams and help others, as well as receive help, to reach a common goal. For the second dimension of egalitarianism vs. status I was completelty egalitarian. This is definitely me due to the fact that I am focused on accomplishing my own goals no matter what obstacles I encounter and I believe everyone who has a good work ethic has the ability to do the same. I am closer to the risk side of the third dimension which does not surprise me at all. Since I was a kid I have been taking chances whether in school, relationships, work, and everyday life and it has helped me to develop a mindset of "always try your hardest and don't be afraid to fail." I am most certainly an indirect person when it comes to certain situations where I do not want to insult anyone or hurt their feelings. But I am also direct when it comes to voicing my opinion in a non argumentative manner. When it comes to task vs. relationship I am 100% task oriented. When I have my mind set on achieving something, I focus all my attention to that and don't let emotions or personal conflicts distract me. When it comes to the long-term vs. short-term dimension the score placed me at having a high long-term focus. I agree with this because I am the type of person who likes to think about the big picture and what outcomes, either positive or negative, my actions will cause.
My grandparents most certainly don't have the same profile as me. It is mostly due to the fact that they were born and raised in a small town in Mexico in the early 1900's. Their values and ways of living are very different because of their environemnt as well as the aspects of life that were deemed important such as hard work, saving money, and respect. To them, having strong leadership ability meant being able to support yourself and your family. They were not concerned with global skills development simply for the fact that their world was very small.
When it comes to egalitarianism, risk, and task I am considered a typical member of my U.S.A. culture. This is probably due to the fact that I have been born and raised in the U.S.A. and have developed tendencies towrads these dimensions. On the other hand my dependence, indirectness, and long-term orienation is quite different from my U.S.A. culture. I believe this is due to my ethnicity being Mexican. Experiencing the cultural events and interacting with people of the same background has allowed me be my own person and choose the direction I want to go with my life.
My grandparents most certainly don't have the same profile as me. It is mostly due to the fact that they were born and raised in a small town in Mexico in the early 1900's. Their values and ways of living are very different because of their environemnt as well as the aspects of life that were deemed important such as hard work, saving money, and respect. To them, having strong leadership ability meant being able to support yourself and your family. They were not concerned with global skills development simply for the fact that their world was very small.
When it comes to egalitarianism, risk, and task I am considered a typical member of my U.S.A. culture. This is probably due to the fact that I have been born and raised in the U.S.A. and have developed tendencies towrads these dimensions. On the other hand my dependence, indirectness, and long-term orienation is quite different from my U.S.A. culture. I believe this is due to my ethnicity being Mexican. Experiencing the cultural events and interacting with people of the same background has allowed me be my own person and choose the direction I want to go with my life.
CPQ
Yes, my CPQ scores seem valid. I proudly say this because my scores were above the average of the class. However, three of my scores were below of the class average; Subjugation Relation to Environment, Being Activity and Good/ Evil. I was surprised by the result of Subjugation Relation for I believe that the world and our actions are influenced a supernatural element. The scores pretty much reflect who I am and support my own view of who I am and see myself to be.
These results help me understand my behavior when interacting with people from other cultures as evident from the results. The results conclude that I am harmonious which is true and relates to cultures who are harmonious. I tend to believe of a balance among the elements of the environment and myself/ourselves. A great example is of global warming. Due to the ignorance of human beings, not being responsible and taking care of the earth, several detrimental global events have taken place. Pollution is the leading factor to altering temperature and we as human being have accomplish minimal to assist in the prevention of the termination of the world. I try to recycle and pollute less. As far as Being Activity, I believe that everything in life happens for a reason yet everything happens in its due time. Yet, this believe contradicts my motto of life that nothing in life comes to those who wait. Therefore, I have the mentality to be a “Go Getter” and expect nothing to be given to me. This would explain my desire to have the best and better things of life. I have the tendency to process material, respond and initiate a solution faster than the average. And this would explain my misunderstanding and frustrations of when people live, act, comprehend and respond at a slower rate.
Overall, I enjoyed the CPQ survey.
These results help me understand my behavior when interacting with people from other cultures as evident from the results. The results conclude that I am harmonious which is true and relates to cultures who are harmonious. I tend to believe of a balance among the elements of the environment and myself/ourselves. A great example is of global warming. Due to the ignorance of human beings, not being responsible and taking care of the earth, several detrimental global events have taken place. Pollution is the leading factor to altering temperature and we as human being have accomplish minimal to assist in the prevention of the termination of the world. I try to recycle and pollute less. As far as Being Activity, I believe that everything in life happens for a reason yet everything happens in its due time. Yet, this believe contradicts my motto of life that nothing in life comes to those who wait. Therefore, I have the mentality to be a “Go Getter” and expect nothing to be given to me. This would explain my desire to have the best and better things of life. I have the tendency to process material, respond and initiate a solution faster than the average. And this would explain my misunderstanding and frustrations of when people live, act, comprehend and respond at a slower rate.
Overall, I enjoyed the CPQ survey.
CPQ BLOG
As I reviewed my scores for the CPQ assessment, I saw that some of my scores were above average and below average. The scores that I had that were above average on the CPQ were the Mastery 6.00(average 5.47) and Subjugation 5.00 (average 3.23) under the orientation of "Relation to Environment". The orientation for "Relationships among People", I had an above average score on Individual 5.38 (average 4.92). Orientation "Activity", I also had above average scores on Being 4.50 (average 4.41) and Thinking 6.25 average (5.23). In addition, Orientation "Nature of Humans", I was above average of Good/Evil 4.40 (average 4.02). Furthermore, My above average score on Orientation "time" under Present dimension was 5.00 (average 4.22). After looking at my above average scores for those categories, I agree on them which I say the results were accurate. For example, I had a high score on "Relationships among people" for Individuals of 5.38 because I do believe that our first responsibility is to ourselves of what is best for us and our immediate family. I think many people would agree on that too because seeing what we think should do for our lives is what comes into mind and many people do believe in family values and caring for them. Another example is "Activity" under Thinking, I have a high score on Thinking of 6.25 because I'm someone that is self-concious of what I do, which means I always consider all things carefully before taking any action upon it. Then my other example of "Time" under present was 5.00 because every day, there is a need and decisions have to be made to get something done.
The below average scores that I recieved on the CPQ varied. "Relation to Environment" under Harmony, I got a 5.29 (average is 5.58). I probably got a low score on that because I don't think we are able to control everything that happens in the environment, however, we can only control what we can do on our own part. In addition, "Relationships among people", I had a low score on collective 4.00 (average 5.03) because I probably work more productive if I'm working on something on my own, rather than being in a group. Although I like working in a group, i think there is probably more concentration in place when working on something. Then I had a low score on Hierachical 4.00 (average 4.22) that "It is normal and good that power and responsiblity are unequally distributed throughout society". I totally disagree on that because there are people out there that should have more power than others due to the fact that some people may have more experience and abilities to do something, but never get noticed within the company to rank up. My score on "Activity" under doing was 4.38 (average 5.25) because I don't think it's possible for every one to be continually engaged in accomplishing tangible tasks as some of them may be difficult to accomplish, people take breaks, and sometimes don't complete what they are suppose to do. Furthermore, My score on "Time" under Future 4.75 (average 4.53) was low because although we have to set the pace for what happens in the future, we can't really worry about that too much during the present time as there are other important things to worry about first. Lastly, my score on "Time" under Past was 4.75 (average 5.71) because we must move on from the past, and look forward to the future, and worry about the present.
Overall, I think that my scores on the CPQ were correct and accurate because I answered the questions based on what I believe and have experienced.
The below average scores that I recieved on the CPQ varied. "Relation to Environment" under Harmony, I got a 5.29 (average is 5.58). I probably got a low score on that because I don't think we are able to control everything that happens in the environment, however, we can only control what we can do on our own part. In addition, "Relationships among people", I had a low score on collective 4.00 (average 5.03) because I probably work more productive if I'm working on something on my own, rather than being in a group. Although I like working in a group, i think there is probably more concentration in place when working on something. Then I had a low score on Hierachical 4.00 (average 4.22) that "It is normal and good that power and responsiblity are unequally distributed throughout society". I totally disagree on that because there are people out there that should have more power than others due to the fact that some people may have more experience and abilities to do something, but never get noticed within the company to rank up. My score on "Activity" under doing was 4.38 (average 5.25) because I don't think it's possible for every one to be continually engaged in accomplishing tangible tasks as some of them may be difficult to accomplish, people take breaks, and sometimes don't complete what they are suppose to do. Furthermore, My score on "Time" under Future 4.75 (average 4.53) was low because although we have to set the pace for what happens in the future, we can't really worry about that too much during the present time as there are other important things to worry about first. Lastly, my score on "Time" under Past was 4.75 (average 5.71) because we must move on from the past, and look forward to the future, and worry about the present.
Overall, I think that my scores on the CPQ were correct and accurate because I answered the questions based on what I believe and have experienced.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
GCI assesment
It took me a while to blog about the GCI because I got it late but here it goes:
Overall I got a really good score in the competency index but one of the lowest scores I have is in Category inclusiveness.
Even though I've lived in different places it seems to be that I still have some trouble accepting some cultural differences. I guess it's because I always try to befriend people who are very similar to me even though they are in different cultures.
That's why probably my emotional sensitivity is low as well, since I am not able to recognize different cultures emotional reactions or feelings only the ones from my culture.
But not everything is bad, besides them two being the lowest ones, I got almost all of the remaining ones in the "high" category and I like that.
That means that thanks to the opportunity of living in different countries, that has given me the opportunity to be more open to new experiences, to be more socially flexible (even though apparently not very inclusive haha) and to become very optimistic and self confident.
Overall I think the report portraits pretty accurately who I am and what I have come to think of me just by mere observation. It also provides me with an insight of were my weaknesses lie and where should I focus to improve.
ARACRUZ Simulation
1) What did I learn from the Simulation?
For the most part, it was easy going into the simulation knowing what my group (FUNAI) wanted. I assumed that FUNAI, being interested in helping the natives (even though it was a government branch) would be aligned with FUNAI. I found this to be inaccurate. The indigenous people wanted MUCH MORE than what FUNAI would have been happy with. Every group was a little "selfish" in this sense. Although my classmates were generous, I feel like in the real-life situation, however respectful representatives could be, the main interest of the larger groups were slightly selfish. Each group would find reason within their requests, but in the end, everyone wanted something different--even groups that were seemingly on the same side! The most difficult group was probably that of the "Community"--they were the ones who probably had the best interests of all parties involved the best outlined, but nobody would cede to what they asked because we all had our minds made up (not the individuals, but the groups of the simulation).
2) What helped our group to be effective?
We listened to everybody, and made sure everybody spoke their piece. Everybody was respectful; nobody spoke out of turn, and we did really listen. I find that in situations that could prove confrontational or lead to conflict, staying calm and really listening--we were given two ears and one mouth and should therefore use them thus proportionately--helps a lot. Our communication was open; at the end of it all, we were aware of what each group wanted. According to our sheets, however, we could only give away so much. If the agreements were made between those of us involved (classmates, not "characters") then I believe an agreement (true agreement) could have been reached. Unfortunately, as it were, we were left with very little room to negotiate.
3) In what ways was your group ineffective?
We realized toward the end that everybody was bringing their own agenda to the table. The only way to really reach an agreement was to compromise. Unfortunately, what did compromising entail? Nobody would walk away with anything, really. The sad truth is that, in order to satisfy everyone equally--people would have to re-draw what their goals were. All the players in the simulation--but in their real-life situation with the real-life counterparts--would have to find a way to be happy with what they got, but also to be willing to give up some things they might have really wanted. Aracruz already felt they were doing a lot, giving a lot--but the groups interested in helping the indigenous (especially the indigenous groups) felt they could do more. In general, people representing BRAZIL and BRAZIL's interests found both sides to not be very giving (knowing their goals and that they are not willing to budge). This leads to an "agree to disagree" result, and nothing gets accomplished.
Instead of "compromise" (which in itself sometimes has negative connotations), the parties involved should find a different way to settle things--give a little to get a little.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Group presentations
Last Fridays class was a very good experience for both audience and presentors. On the informative side, I was very pleased to learn alot of valuable information about global issues happening today. The groups whose focus was on water supply was very detailed and shared alot of interesting facts. I knew about the shortage but I never understood fully why,and their explanation of contamination and allocation helped to give me a better idea. The other group who presented upon the subject of urban development also did a very nice job with their organization and delivery. They're knowledge about the top nations in the world using greenroofing compared to that of the United States tells me that there is a huge international market in this industry,and that should be appealing to all students who desire a career and want to help keep our communities healthy at the same time. My groups presenatation about food scarcity was an overall success. I believe we touched upon all the points we wanted to get across to our audience. Our organization and preparation could have been better with more practice of course, but none the less we all came together and made it work.
The other part i liked about this class period was the evaluations we got to conduct. Besides the fact that i was able to get constructive criticism about my presentation skills as well as the content of my presentation, I was able to analyze and learn from other people. Whether it was a positive or negative critique, it was very beneficial for me because I am able to apply that to my next presentation. Things such as body language and the use of filler words "like" and umm" are somethings we all must conquer in order to be great presentors as well as leaders. Learning from my mistakes is a great way for me to improve myself in various aspects of my life, and I'm sure others feel the same way.
The other part i liked about this class period was the evaluations we got to conduct. Besides the fact that i was able to get constructive criticism about my presentation skills as well as the content of my presentation, I was able to analyze and learn from other people. Whether it was a positive or negative critique, it was very beneficial for me because I am able to apply that to my next presentation. Things such as body language and the use of filler words "like" and umm" are somethings we all must conquer in order to be great presentors as well as leaders. Learning from my mistakes is a great way for me to improve myself in various aspects of my life, and I'm sure others feel the same way.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Aracruz
1) After the Aracruz simulation I learned that in order to be an effective global leader you must be open minded you must be able to present your ideas and/or suggestions well, and you must be able to take criticism and use it in a way that would work to your benefit. Being from the Aracruz company was quite challening because it felt as if everyone was trying to attack us and make our company look bad one way or another. Many people from different groups would bring up their suggustions but for some reason their solutions always hinted towards asking for more money or land from our Aracruz company.
2) I think that our stakeholder dialogue started off a little slow because as a group we were still trying to understand one another and out different situations. However, as time went on we were able to develop more of an understanding between the differnt groups of people and inch towards a possible solution which was to get the government to purchase land surrounding the Aracruz mills and plantations and give that land to the native people and placing a tax on the land which would satisfy everyones' needs.
3) I think that in order for my group to have been more effective that we should read our groupd task and description more carefully to the point where the idea was crystal clear to every group member.
2) I think that our stakeholder dialogue started off a little slow because as a group we were still trying to understand one another and out different situations. However, as time went on we were able to develop more of an understanding between the differnt groups of people and inch towards a possible solution which was to get the government to purchase land surrounding the Aracruz mills and plantations and give that land to the native people and placing a tax on the land which would satisfy everyones' needs.
3) I think that in order for my group to have been more effective that we should read our groupd task and description more carefully to the point where the idea was crystal clear to every group member.
GCI
1) I feel that my scores were very valid because there was alot of detailed questions and I was able to read and answer all questions carefully. I liked how each result showed an explanation as to how I was ranked by demonstrating my level of effectiveness.
2) After taking the GCI test I learned that I am not ready to be a global leader just yet, for there are alot of noncompatible results that came back. Also alot of my scores were ranked really low as well as my overall score was right in the middle; meaning my social disirability had no impact what so ever.
3) The only six I scored on my GCI test was in the Relationship Management category under Emotional Sensitivity. I'm not exactly sure what this mean but I'm guessing it is to show that I am understandable and very openminded when is comes to people and their emotions. I always try to stay optomistic in every situation and I really like being there for other when my help is needed. I ranked the lowest in the Perception Management section and the Self-Management section. Specifically in the Nonjudgmentalness category, the Cosmopolitanism category, the Emotional Resilience category, the Non-Stress Tendency category, and the Stress Management cateory.
4) Personally, I would like to try to develop anything below a four; however, realistically I would have to focus on one thing at a time. I would like to first focus on fixing all the ones that I got on my chart then work from there.
2) After taking the GCI test I learned that I am not ready to be a global leader just yet, for there are alot of noncompatible results that came back. Also alot of my scores were ranked really low as well as my overall score was right in the middle; meaning my social disirability had no impact what so ever.
3) The only six I scored on my GCI test was in the Relationship Management category under Emotional Sensitivity. I'm not exactly sure what this mean but I'm guessing it is to show that I am understandable and very openminded when is comes to people and their emotions. I always try to stay optomistic in every situation and I really like being there for other when my help is needed. I ranked the lowest in the Perception Management section and the Self-Management section. Specifically in the Nonjudgmentalness category, the Cosmopolitanism category, the Emotional Resilience category, the Non-Stress Tendency category, and the Stress Management cateory.
4) Personally, I would like to try to develop anything below a four; however, realistically I would have to focus on one thing at a time. I would like to first focus on fixing all the ones that I got on my chart then work from there.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Globesmart
1) My Globesmart scores are not as valid as I expected. According to my results I am more interedependent then independent. I would have to disagree with this because I feel that I am more independent, for I usually like to make my own decisions in most situations. Results also show that I am indirect, I have restraints, and I like to think more long-term as opposed to short-term. Although some of my results came back in valid about four out of five were valid.
2) I think that my grandparents would have had a profile very similar to mine. I was raised by my grandma and my parents in a very traditional Filipino household so their morals and values were instilled in me starting at a very young age. Therefore, our profiles would be very similar and very close to cultural values.
3) Suprisingly I am not considered a typical member of my culture according to Globesmart. The Philippines stays more towards the right side of the scale and my results show that I am more back and forth on the scale.
2) I think that my grandparents would have had a profile very similar to mine. I was raised by my grandma and my parents in a very traditional Filipino household so their morals and values were instilled in me starting at a very young age. Therefore, our profiles would be very similar and very close to cultural values.
3) Suprisingly I am not considered a typical member of my culture according to Globesmart. The Philippines stays more towards the right side of the scale and my results show that I am more back and forth on the scale.
CPQ
I feel my scores are pretty accurate. I consider myself for the most part having a moderate personality or view point. Most of my scores were pretty close to the group average. This is probably do to the fact that we are all around the same age,share many of the same experience as students at SJSU and all live in the bay area. I scored lower then the class average and country average on “basic nature of people”. When interacting with people from other cultures I need to be aware of that so I don’t let my biases get in the way when engaging with them. I scored the highest on “harmany”and “past” and I feel this is very accurate to my personality. Harmony is essential for any relationship whether it be business relationsships, your neighbors, coworker’s significant other etc I try to keep harmony in all relationships when possible and only break that harmony if I strongly feel something isn’t working or it’s wrong. In many cases I’ll choose to make sacrifices in order to maintain that harmony. Its s very important though to know when to push back so that people don’t take advantage of your desire to maintain harmony. I also scored high in “past” I strongly feel that we must study the past and learn from it so that we don’t make the same mistakes. History often repeats it’s self.
Aracruz:
1)What did I learn from the Simulation?
When preparing for this presentation as a FUNAI member I made the assumption that we were the only organization supporting the Indians and I assumed that FUNAI would have to persuade other Government parties to pass laws to protect the Indians. Because of this assumption many of my arguments and demands were very liberal initially. When entering the heterogeneous group I realized I had to be more conservative in order to portray the government more accurately. I learned the importance of not making assumptions b/c they many times lead to inaccuracies. I also feel that I learned to have better listening skills as well as to be more open minded. I really liked this simulation b/c in away it forced us to compromise with one another to gain a resolution that satisfied all members needs.
2) what helped our group be effective was?
All members where respectful to everyone points of views and end goals. I feel we had a good mix of personalities in our group. The members with extraverted personalities would engage with the more introverted members to ensure all voice were heard. I feel we came up with a good conclusion once we where able to prioritize the Indians and Aracruz’s needs.
3) What ways was your group ineffective?
Our group was ineffective towards the beginning of the exercise as many members were some what stand offish. I believe this was do to the fact that many of us were prepared to debate and when changing gears we were worried about coming off as confrontational. Once we got the 5min call to turn in the 1st section everyone in the group realized that we weren’t being productive and snapped into gear. After that 5min warning I believe the group did very well in engaging with one another. We just got off to a slow start.
GLOBESMART
1. Do your GLOBESMART scores seem valid? Why?
Yes they seem valid because the points where I am at either end of the lines are accurate. For instance, interdependent is correct because I like to make sure everyone’s opinion is included and everyone agrees with the end result. Another is Egalitarianism because at work, I am able to direct myself as in what projects I need to complete with minimal supervision.
2. Do you think your grandparents (or oldest living generation of relatives if you didn't know your grandparents) have the same profile as you do? Why?
No because I have grown up in the US since 3 months old. I believe this has played a major role in the difference between my grandparents profile and my profile.
3. Are you a typical member of your culture? (Compare your results with the profile for your country.)
I believe I am not, however, I am unable to verify that since my country (Nicaragua) was not listed in the list of countries.
Yes they seem valid because the points where I am at either end of the lines are accurate. For instance, interdependent is correct because I like to make sure everyone’s opinion is included and everyone agrees with the end result. Another is Egalitarianism because at work, I am able to direct myself as in what projects I need to complete with minimal supervision.
2. Do you think your grandparents (or oldest living generation of relatives if you didn't know your grandparents) have the same profile as you do? Why?
No because I have grown up in the US since 3 months old. I believe this has played a major role in the difference between my grandparents profile and my profile.
3. Are you a typical member of your culture? (Compare your results with the profile for your country.)
I believe I am not, however, I am unable to verify that since my country (Nicaragua) was not listed in the list of countries.
GCI
1. Do your scores seem valid? Why?
My scores seem valid because 95% of the results describe me well. For instance, Emotional Sensitivity is definitely correct, I scored a 6. I like to think of myself as highly capable of understanding the feelings and concerns of others and respond with empathy to their circumstances. Also the Non-Stress Tendency and Stress Management I scored a 1 for both dimensions. This is true because I tend to stress very easily and I find it difficult to distress.
2. What is the most significant lesson you learned from this instrument?
I learned that I need work on making fewer assumptions and not being judgmental.
3. What are your major strengths and weaknesses according to this instrument?
My strengths are Relationship Management, Emotional Sensitivity, Optimism, Interest Flexibility, and Inquisitiveness. My weaknesses are Perception Management, Nonjudgmentalness, Tolerance of Ambiguity, Category Inclusiveness, Non-Stress Tendency, and Stress Management.
4. Which dimension should you try to develop more or to leverage to be more effective at work or school?
Nonjudgmentalness is a dimension I should try to develop more for work. In regard to school, I should try to work on Non-Stress Tendency.
My scores seem valid because 95% of the results describe me well. For instance, Emotional Sensitivity is definitely correct, I scored a 6. I like to think of myself as highly capable of understanding the feelings and concerns of others and respond with empathy to their circumstances. Also the Non-Stress Tendency and Stress Management I scored a 1 for both dimensions. This is true because I tend to stress very easily and I find it difficult to distress.
2. What is the most significant lesson you learned from this instrument?
I learned that I need work on making fewer assumptions and not being judgmental.
3. What are your major strengths and weaknesses according to this instrument?
My strengths are Relationship Management, Emotional Sensitivity, Optimism, Interest Flexibility, and Inquisitiveness. My weaknesses are Perception Management, Nonjudgmentalness, Tolerance of Ambiguity, Category Inclusiveness, Non-Stress Tendency, and Stress Management.
4. Which dimension should you try to develop more or to leverage to be more effective at work or school?
Nonjudgmentalness is a dimension I should try to develop more for work. In regard to school, I should try to work on Non-Stress Tendency.
Aracruz's Discussion
1. What did you learn from this stimulation?
- First off, I learn how to be an active listener. Not only did I have to express my view point clearly, but also I had to understand others’. Just like professor Joy explained, the situation was not a debate. Rather, it was a discussion to reach a feasible solution for all: indigenous people, government and community representatives, international groups, and Aracruz employees. Obviously, with different backgrounds and multiple interests at stake, it was hard to find practicable solutions, so I felt that learning the similarities and differences among participants were keys. This helped us to find a common ground and elaborate from there. However, the role of differences between parties played as other values added to the solution if we could agree upon. In this kind of discussion, I learned that it’d be best to understand others’ values and interests and find similarities among the parties. From that, finding a possible solution for involved parties might be achieved.
2. What went well in your group and stakeholder dialogue?
- My first impression was that other parties were really interested in what I, a representative of indigenous people, had to say. I only presented a partial of landless family, but my interest might play as an essential role in the discussion. Just like Aracruz stated in our discussion, if landless families were happy with the solutions, other parties would also be satisfied.
3. How could your group have been more effective?
- My group would be even more effective if there are a little more information on the landless families and how many members were to have in each tribe. Further, I felt that I didn’t have relevant information to talk to the Aracruz’s employees about how much hectare one family needs. Another useful piece of information might be how indigenous people value the land and in what way that they would like to ask for the land. To us, these are critical information, and it would possibly help to generate feasible solutions.
- First off, I learn how to be an active listener. Not only did I have to express my view point clearly, but also I had to understand others’. Just like professor Joy explained, the situation was not a debate. Rather, it was a discussion to reach a feasible solution for all: indigenous people, government and community representatives, international groups, and Aracruz employees. Obviously, with different backgrounds and multiple interests at stake, it was hard to find practicable solutions, so I felt that learning the similarities and differences among participants were keys. This helped us to find a common ground and elaborate from there. However, the role of differences between parties played as other values added to the solution if we could agree upon. In this kind of discussion, I learned that it’d be best to understand others’ values and interests and find similarities among the parties. From that, finding a possible solution for involved parties might be achieved.
2. What went well in your group and stakeholder dialogue?
- My first impression was that other parties were really interested in what I, a representative of indigenous people, had to say. I only presented a partial of landless family, but my interest might play as an essential role in the discussion. Just like Aracruz stated in our discussion, if landless families were happy with the solutions, other parties would also be satisfied.
3. How could your group have been more effective?
- My group would be even more effective if there are a little more information on the landless families and how many members were to have in each tribe. Further, I felt that I didn’t have relevant information to talk to the Aracruz’s employees about how much hectare one family needs. Another useful piece of information might be how indigenous people value the land and in what way that they would like to ask for the land. To us, these are critical information, and it would possibly help to generate feasible solutions.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
The Queen's Garden
I felt award playing a role of a submissive man in the country X. however, it was not hard for me to play such role as it illustrated somewhat my personality. I was sure giving those Americans hard time to figuring out how to get the permission for the Queen’s garden. It was because of not making eyes contact since Americans evaluated the content of a conversation through people’s eyes. Further, my limit of English words hindered further my communication. From my perspective, a better approach was to ask about the country X’s culture and how people interact with one another. Then, it would be best to ask what the role of men and women in the society, for it’s different between community. From there, we’d use feasible approach for both side without causing any uncomfortable feelings between parties.
Alphan & Betan - Cultural Collision
The stimulation was really good. I could see how I reacted to alpha culture, a different culture with my own, beta. Indeed, I used mostly evaluation to look at alpha culture. When I first arrived at their land, my first impression was that they were really untrustworthy, weird and disrespectful. This interpretation is wrong in several ways.
First, I perceived their actions of playing cards as gambling. This was wrong to interpret as such since I used my own cultural value and assumed that they were untrustworthy due to gambling. Second, alphans seem to overly enjoy each other company by hugging, talking and smiling. Although this should be described as description, I interpreted the acts as weirdness from betan’s view point. Indeed, this was wrong as well because I jumped to conclusion prior to understand what it really meant to be alphan. Third, unaware of the situation, I got my cards taken without my permission. Rather than trying to understanding the reason behind it, I evaluated such behavior as disrespect toward me. This evaluation was wrong in many ways. In fact, I was rude enough to jump in their game without even asking their permission. Then I judged their act as disrespectful instead of judging whether my act was reasonable and understandable. Another mistake was that I did not at all try to make descriptions of what alphans were doing but applied my own reasons and cultures value upon them.
There is one important lesson I learned from the stimulation. It is always best to create descriptions about other cultures, not interpretation or evaluation. After clear descriptions established, I should observe and try to understand the context meaning driving such behaviors.
First, I perceived their actions of playing cards as gambling. This was wrong to interpret as such since I used my own cultural value and assumed that they were untrustworthy due to gambling. Second, alphans seem to overly enjoy each other company by hugging, talking and smiling. Although this should be described as description, I interpreted the acts as weirdness from betan’s view point. Indeed, this was wrong as well because I jumped to conclusion prior to understand what it really meant to be alphan. Third, unaware of the situation, I got my cards taken without my permission. Rather than trying to understanding the reason behind it, I evaluated such behavior as disrespect toward me. This evaluation was wrong in many ways. In fact, I was rude enough to jump in their game without even asking their permission. Then I judged their act as disrespectful instead of judging whether my act was reasonable and understandable. Another mistake was that I did not at all try to make descriptions of what alphans were doing but applied my own reasons and cultures value upon them.
There is one important lesson I learned from the stimulation. It is always best to create descriptions about other cultures, not interpretation or evaluation. After clear descriptions established, I should observe and try to understand the context meaning driving such behaviors.
Globesmart Self-Assessment
This assessment is a good one for me. I could see clearly how much I have changed since I tried to understand and assimilate myself to the US cultures. Obviously, I have become highly interdependent. For this trait, I used to be around the middle between the independent and interdependent. One of the reasons is that my family interacts with one another even more in the US. Thus, I became more interdependent. Another noticeable value is my long-term perspective. My long-term increases dramatically, compared to my native born culture and the US. I don’t know whether this is good or bad, but I feel that I set up my goals all in long term perspective and achieve short term goals along the way. The other four elements, status, restraint, indirect, relationship, change greatly compared to my own culture.
First, my tolerance for risk drifted further from Vietnamese. Right now, I feel that I’m willing to take more risk to achieve my goals rather than wait for fortunate things happen and take initiation. Another thing is that I become more and more direct in giving my ideas. Often, I limit using circular communication toward people that are not from my culture. However, I still try to save others’ face when it comes to confrontation. The next thing I notice is that I focus less on relationship now and more on task. It’s true since my schedule everyday is going to school and finishing my readings and assignments. The environment is much different here and harder to build a relationship even at a friend level since everyone seems too different. For me, the task is much easier to deal with. The last important thing is that I value equality more, although not as much as an American does. This might also be the influence from the US cultures.
First, my tolerance for risk drifted further from Vietnamese. Right now, I feel that I’m willing to take more risk to achieve my goals rather than wait for fortunate things happen and take initiation. Another thing is that I become more and more direct in giving my ideas. Often, I limit using circular communication toward people that are not from my culture. However, I still try to save others’ face when it comes to confrontation. The next thing I notice is that I focus less on relationship now and more on task. It’s true since my schedule everyday is going to school and finishing my readings and assignments. The environment is much different here and harder to build a relationship even at a friend level since everyone seems too different. For me, the task is much easier to deal with. The last important thing is that I value equality more, although not as much as an American does. This might also be the influence from the US cultures.
Culture Perspective Questionnaire
I feel that this test illustrate my very close to my Vietnamese cultures, although not all of it. Some of my areas are significantly different with my birth country. This is mainly due to influence of the US cultures. Honestly, I changed a lot since I immigrated here. I observed and assimilated any positive culture traits that would help me not only to merge into this country but also contribute to my personal growth. I realize that many of my negative or close minded ideas from my traditional culture are replaced by positive ones from a variety of culture, or that is how I see it. I don’t know whether doing so is good or bad in term of my self-identity. Still, my core values are unchanged, such as harmony, being and past values.
Global Competencies Inventory (GCI)
My Global Competencies Inventory (GCI) gave me inside to my perception, relationship and self-management. I understand my strengths and weaknesses for specific area that I need to improve.
First off, I notice that my perception management is very low, but the main focus in this area for me is my tolerance of ambiguity. I feel that this might be my culture of high uncertainty avoidance. I have some hard time keeping up with any ambiguous ideas in a conversation. In fact, I usually space out to think or evaluate such ideas. A better approach for me to overcome this is to be exposed more in this area. A practical way is to participate in business discussion, or watch business videos. Additionally, the other two areas that I also need to focus on is cosmopolitanism and inclusiveness. In other words, my curiosity in different cultures and acceptance of differences are extremely low. I think a better way to improve this is gradually observe my classmates and friends since I live in the US, a nation with multinational background immigrants.
The main focus for me on relationship management is to improve my relationship interest. I believe this can also be accomplished through conversation with friends. From there, interests can be easily built if there is chemical between parties.
For my self-management, I score well in different area except for self-identity, my ability to maintain own values and beliefs while still being accepting of those who are different. This might be accomplished through prior method that I have described: get exposed to different cultures but still keep my culture.
I wonder whether my ways are effective in improving these areas.
First off, I notice that my perception management is very low, but the main focus in this area for me is my tolerance of ambiguity. I feel that this might be my culture of high uncertainty avoidance. I have some hard time keeping up with any ambiguous ideas in a conversation. In fact, I usually space out to think or evaluate such ideas. A better approach for me to overcome this is to be exposed more in this area. A practical way is to participate in business discussion, or watch business videos. Additionally, the other two areas that I also need to focus on is cosmopolitanism and inclusiveness. In other words, my curiosity in different cultures and acceptance of differences are extremely low. I think a better way to improve this is gradually observe my classmates and friends since I live in the US, a nation with multinational background immigrants.
The main focus for me on relationship management is to improve my relationship interest. I believe this can also be accomplished through conversation with friends. From there, interests can be easily built if there is chemical between parties.
For my self-management, I score well in different area except for self-identity, my ability to maintain own values and beliefs while still being accepting of those who are different. This might be accomplished through prior method that I have described: get exposed to different cultures but still keep my culture.
I wonder whether my ways are effective in improving these areas.
Aracruz Simulation
What did you learn from this simulation?
I learned how to be respectful with people that have different opinions. We did not argue, fight or got aggressive. We respected others opinions and ideas. We did not interrupt when someone else was talking and there were pauses after each one talked to keep the meeting calm. Everyone had the opportunity to share his or her idea and everyone else listened with respect.
What went well in your group re-stakeholder dialogue?
We listened carefully to each idea and then tried to make up some solutions. At the end the only effective solution was that the Government should buy some of the Aracruz terrain and surrounding terrain and give it for free to the indians. Then the indiands could work for Aracruz, therefore they ought to pay taxes to the Government.
How could your group have been more effective?
Probably at the beginning we were to shy and did not express our ideas firmly and clearly. But in general we did it very good. We ended up with a solution and everyone seemed to be happy.
I learned how to be respectful with people that have different opinions. We did not argue, fight or got aggressive. We respected others opinions and ideas. We did not interrupt when someone else was talking and there were pauses after each one talked to keep the meeting calm. Everyone had the opportunity to share his or her idea and everyone else listened with respect.
What went well in your group re-stakeholder dialogue?
We listened carefully to each idea and then tried to make up some solutions. At the end the only effective solution was that the Government should buy some of the Aracruz terrain and surrounding terrain and give it for free to the indians. Then the indiands could work for Aracruz, therefore they ought to pay taxes to the Government.
How could your group have been more effective?
Probably at the beginning we were to shy and did not express our ideas firmly and clearly. But in general we did it very good. We ended up with a solution and everyone seemed to be happy.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Aracruz Simulation
What did you lean from the simulation?
Being part of the "community" it was more difficult to get the real story from each party. After watching the presentations, I had a much better understanding of each party's values and their approach to the problem at hand. It was a first time that I got to participate in a real world situation and figure out a bottom line solution that would satisfy all parties. That was much easier said then done.
What went well in your group and stakeholder dialogue?
Everyone was very respectful to each other and everyone was eager to hear the other person's thoughts and values. Everyone participated and contributed their ideas and even though we kept hitting a conflict, we kept going to figure out a better compromise.
How could your group have been more effective?
The shyness factor was a bit of an issue in the very beginning and everyone was a little too respectful to the point that we couldn't figure out what was the true values and intentions of each party. But in the end as we got more comfortable everyone clearly voice their thoughts on the situation.
Being part of the "community" it was more difficult to get the real story from each party. After watching the presentations, I had a much better understanding of each party's values and their approach to the problem at hand. It was a first time that I got to participate in a real world situation and figure out a bottom line solution that would satisfy all parties. That was much easier said then done.
What went well in your group and stakeholder dialogue?
Everyone was very respectful to each other and everyone was eager to hear the other person's thoughts and values. Everyone participated and contributed their ideas and even though we kept hitting a conflict, we kept going to figure out a better compromise.
How could your group have been more effective?
The shyness factor was a bit of an issue in the very beginning and everyone was a little too respectful to the point that we couldn't figure out what was the true values and intentions of each party. But in the end as we got more comfortable everyone clearly voice their thoughts on the situation.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Aracruz Simulation
What did you learn from the simulation?
I learned a lot from this simulation, but the most important experience I learned was stakeholder dialogue. It was very interesting learning how to represent a specific group and listen to different goals and ideas of other representatives of stakeholders. During the stakeholder dialogue I represented the FUNAI so I had to make sure I protected the rights and culture of the indigenous community. The simulation was about coming up with a solution that would benefit everyone. I learned how to listen to other stakeholders ideas and point of views. The simulation was very fun because it gives an idea and experience of the real world in international dialogue when people from other groups have different opinions, goals, or point of views.
What went well in your group and stakeholder dialogue?
During the stakeholder dialogue everything went well because all the stakeholders worked together for a solution. Everyone listened carefully to each others ideas and interests. There were few differences at first but through our dialogue and conversation all stakeholders agreed to a solution that would benefit all sides. Also, in my group everything went well because all team members contributed on the activity and our presentation.
How would your group have been more effective?
I think we all did a great job because at the end we all agreed to a solution. Everyone was using the methods of stakeholders dialogue that facilitated our communication within the stakeholders.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Simulation Stakeholder Perspectives
What I learned from doing the simulation this day is that different groups of people or companies are willing to share ideas and opinions of how they want to solve the problems with trying to come up with an agreement. Being from a another background and having values that are in contrast to another group makes it important to listen first, then speak out what we think. Although the Indigenous and landless people believed that Aracruz wasn’t being fair regarding the distribution of land, the Internetional NGOS, FUNAI, and Community were willing to help and brainstorm ways to try to come up with a solution.
What I think went well for my group re stakeholder dialogue was that Aracruz agreed to give some more land back so that it can help the Indigenous and landless people. In addition, the government is willing to reimburse the money to Aracruz of the money they spent when the land was purchased before. Aracruz agrees to do this so that it can improve their image and prevent having a bad reputation so that other stakeholder groups will not look at Aracruz negatively.
The group I think was already effective because we had already shared our ideas of the problem, and came up with a solution for it. In addition, if the having the agreements with each other was a bad idea, someone could have stepped in and give explainations on why the agreed actions should not take place. Moreover, since no one spoken up about this, every one thought it was already good enough and signed the contract which I believe was effective. Furthermore, every one acted in a professional manner without having a bad argument which I think was great because not every one is able to control their emotions when it comes to trying to compromise a solution.
What I think went well for my group re stakeholder dialogue was that Aracruz agreed to give some more land back so that it can help the Indigenous and landless people. In addition, the government is willing to reimburse the money to Aracruz of the money they spent when the land was purchased before. Aracruz agrees to do this so that it can improve their image and prevent having a bad reputation so that other stakeholder groups will not look at Aracruz negatively.
The group I think was already effective because we had already shared our ideas of the problem, and came up with a solution for it. In addition, if the having the agreements with each other was a bad idea, someone could have stepped in and give explainations on why the agreed actions should not take place. Moreover, since no one spoken up about this, every one thought it was already good enough and signed the contract which I believe was effective. Furthermore, every one acted in a professional manner without having a bad argument which I think was great because not every one is able to control their emotions when it comes to trying to compromise a solution.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Aracruz
1, what did you learn from this simulation?
The most important lesson from this simulation is that if parties are not going to come to a common ground or if both sides are not willing to compromise there is not going to be an agreement that is going to last. Aracruz has the legal entity of the land and the indigenous people also have the right to ask for their land. In order to have a concession there should be a mediator who is not bias that way both sides move on and work on prospering the community.
2, What went well in your group and stakeholder dialogue?
The thing that every body understood was that this situation is not going to fix it self or with small sacrifices. We understood that both parties have to make huge scarifies in order to solve the situation. On our dialogue there was a need for a common ground. Everybody tried to compromise and felt like we had to focus more on the effective solution.
3) How would your group have been more effective?
The group would be more effective if aracruze is willing to put more in the table. Every member of the society and the agencies understood that aracruze has the legal right for the property however the indigenous people felt like they need more. Giving the fact that Aracruz has 250,000 hectors of land they should have provided more to the society.
Aracruz Simulation
What did you lean from the simulation?
I was a member of the "community", and that meant I was basically the middleman between Aracruz and the indigenous. The simulation taught me to look at and respect both sides of the argument. I felt that what the community was trying to achieve was peace, for everyone to be content with what they got, and we weren't the only ones that wanted to achieve this, Aracruz and the indigenous wanted this as well. Although the indigenous tactics for getting what they wanted was a tad extreme, they saw no other way, feeling frustrated and abandoned would escalate to chaos like it occurred in Aracruz.
What went well in your group and stakeholder dialogue?
I think my group did an awesome job on the PPT. During the stakeholder dialogue I had a really good experience, everyone spoke and got to say what they wanted to say in a respectful manner, and everyone waited their turn, we actually felt like we needed more time to discuss solutions and the issue at hand. We took a while trying to explain where we came from because we had so many questions for each other. When we were brainstorming for solutions we came to consensus rather quickly because we knew the issue at hand needed to be solved so that we could all benefit from the compromised decision Aracruz and the indigenous made.
How could your group have been more effective?
I think my group did a good job on this project, we were well prepared. Also, I can only speak for myself, but during the dialogue I felt that all of us in the stakeholder group felt like we were actually getting something done, our discussion actually led to a good solution.
I was a member of the "community", and that meant I was basically the middleman between Aracruz and the indigenous. The simulation taught me to look at and respect both sides of the argument. I felt that what the community was trying to achieve was peace, for everyone to be content with what they got, and we weren't the only ones that wanted to achieve this, Aracruz and the indigenous wanted this as well. Although the indigenous tactics for getting what they wanted was a tad extreme, they saw no other way, feeling frustrated and abandoned would escalate to chaos like it occurred in Aracruz.
What went well in your group and stakeholder dialogue?
I think my group did an awesome job on the PPT. During the stakeholder dialogue I had a really good experience, everyone spoke and got to say what they wanted to say in a respectful manner, and everyone waited their turn, we actually felt like we needed more time to discuss solutions and the issue at hand. We took a while trying to explain where we came from because we had so many questions for each other. When we were brainstorming for solutions we came to consensus rather quickly because we knew the issue at hand needed to be solved so that we could all benefit from the compromised decision Aracruz and the indigenous made.
How could your group have been more effective?
I think my group did a good job on this project, we were well prepared. Also, I can only speak for myself, but during the dialogue I felt that all of us in the stakeholder group felt like we were actually getting something done, our discussion actually led to a good solution.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Culture Clash - Lessons Learned
During our exercise today, we learned a valuable lesson about high context communications and how to reach a feasible compromise. In my group, our culture clash seemed to be the main event and our common goal seemed very much distant and undoubtedly unattainable. Our focus it seemed, was seeking the satisfaction of expressing our cultural values and thoughts while completely ignoring the incoming communication. The practical take-away here is the practice of establishing a two way street of communication by noticing the nuances and to openly acknowledge the differences before diving into a debate. If executed properly, every team member will be able focus and the road to reach a compromise will be much easier.
Monday, October 18, 2010
GCI Results
When I sold timeshares for Wyndham Resorts, it was probably one of the most hardcore sales job I have ever encountered. Prospective buyers came from all over the country with extremely different backgrounds and interesting cultures. The turnover rate for the salespeople there was what some described to be absurd. However, I was one of the few who did exceptionally well. People have asked me many times what formula or method I used for my sales presentations. I was never able to give them an answer because I myself didn't even know. I never did follow the sales guidelines and if I my sales numbers weren't as effective as they have been, I would have been fired long ago for not following directions.
After spending a few more months with the company, I realized that my effectiveness stemmed from my extreme interest in meeting people who are different than me and having a genuine curiosity about their culture and lifestyle. Taking any initial judgments and putting it aside, I wanted to build solid relationships by respecting their beliefs and being open minded while focusing on their values. My GCI scores seem to reflect that as I scored well on almost all dimensions with an overall GCI score of 6.
The only category that I didn't do well on was category inclusiveness and self identity. I may have extreme interest in learning about someone, but if we are too different I struggle to sustain a solid relationship with that person. It has happened many times before when I find myself in a situation where I don't know what else to say or what topic to bring up to continue a good conversation with someone. I believe it is because I need more real life experiences. I firmly believe people who can sustain a long conversation are also people who have interesting stories to tell. It is easy for me if I am in a sales position because my ultimate objective is to get a sale. But in networking and just making friends, only having a genuine curiosity may not be enough. Being able to relate to that person by sharing personal experiences can really help the other party feel at ease and more open to conversation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)