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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)