The Mediator's Toolkit: Cultural Competence - Transcending Culture Differences in Mediation
The idea of 'culture' has different meanings and definitions. One such definition is as follows: culture refers to "customary beliefs, social norms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group also: the characteristic capabilities of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by folks in a spot or time" (Merriam-Webster). So, although culture is often interpreted in terms of characteristics associated to national or regional origins of an individual or group, this perspective is restricted.
Academics from places of study which includes psychology, sociology, anthropology, organization research, and communications, give consideration to how culture influences individuals' thoughts, actions and interactions. A respected professor emeritus at Maastricht University, Geert Hofstede, has published widely cited analysis in which he identifies techniques of describing national cultures. As effectively, Hofstede considers the implications of national cultural characteristics on enterprise-connected practices and relationships. In specific, in his many research, Hofstede submits cultures of countries and regions are describable along the following five dimensions: power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and lengthy-term orientation. The central conclusion of Hofstede's study is that the way in which a country is characterized in terms of the 5 dimensions explains, if not predicts, organization behaviours and practices of consumers in and from those countries or regions.
It is worth questioning the notion that the cultural characteristics of a country or a region will explain how all people today in that country or region will assume, act, or interact. At the similar time, there does appear to be some validity to the notion that inattention to the cultural differences can offend if not compromise the success of relationships and interactions. For instance, in home business school students are reminded that cultural differences can, maybe in some instances additional than others, influence business practices and influence accomplishment of cross-cultural organization interactions. Classic examples contain Japanese businessmen interpreting pointing utilizing the index finger as an insult or a Chinese businesswoman giving a gift in order to establish a company relationship. A important takeaway from these generic examples of cultural differences and Hofstede's analysis is that prosperous interactions with persons of numerous cultures than our own demands consideration of cultural differences and respect for these differences, at least in order to obtain a normal ground upon which to make relationships and interactions.
A important implication of the definition of culture supplied above and the discussion of Hofstede is that culture functions as a foundation for clustering many people together based on common cultural characteristics and distinguishing them from other people based on dissimilarities in their cultural characteristics. Having said that, as per the definition of culture featured above, when a person's country or region of origin can influence that individual's culture, it is not the only influence on his or her cultural identity. Rather, cultural identity is shaped by a multitude of variables, including religious beliefs, ethnicity, schooling, social affiliations, social class, interests, gender identity, neighbourhood, profession, organization, department and workgroup in which one particular functions, and so on. The feasible influences on an individual's culture, as such, are endless.
As a result, many people from the very same national cultural background might possibly share certain cultural characteristics, but may possibly have radically diverse cultural identities this is for the reason that of the mixture of cultural characteristics making up every person's respective cultural identity. Further, for the reason that an individual's cultural identity will influence his or her thoughts, actions and interactions, differences in cultural identities across parties in a communication or interaction can influence the effectiveness of their communications and interactions this can take place in spite of having shared cultural characteristics, such as those connected to religion or national background. For example, cultural differences can influence each assumptions and expectations of communicating parties to the extent that it leads to misunderstandings, to miscommunications and to conflict. As Geert Hofstede states: "Culture is much more often a supply of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at perfect and usually a disaster."
Not only do cultural differences reasonably contribute to, even cause, conflicts, but they can also impact the capability or willingness of interacting parties to resolve differences. Extra specifically, the influence of culture on an individual's perspective (i.e. assumptions, expectations, beliefs), can be so robust it blinds an individual to the existence of option points of view. In effect, cultural differences can contribute to the unwillingness of parties in an interaction to admit there could be a different way of perceiving a scenario or set of circumstances. In some cases, cultural differences can contribute to the inability for parties in an interaction to see a different perspective on a conflict or dispute. So, not only do cultural differences across disputing parties influence how every single party thinks, acts and interacts, but it also affects the prospective for discord and the possibility and achievement of dispute resolution efforts.
A question that may possibly arise is: what does this have to do with mediation? As has been recommended, a crucial supply of conflict is completely different perspectives. As also recommended, various perspectives commonly arise out of cultural differences. Thus, a mediator's capability to navigate the cultural differences across disputing parties is paramount for accomplishment of dispute resolution. That is, a mediator facilitates discussions across parties in spite of cultural differences that contribute to barriers to understanding and communication that led to the dispute in the initially spot. And, this capability to navigate cultural differences is important if a mediator is to help in discovery of a resolution that appeals to all disputing parties. In impact, 'cultural competence' is an vital skill in a mediator's toolkit.
Cultural competence is a term that refers to the capacity for an individual or group of individuals to navigate cultural variations with sensitivity and poise. Cultural competence is a central skill a mediator should master. Cultural competence refers to a mediator's capacity to: (a) comprehend how culture and/or cultural differences permeate a dispute (b) come across techniques to overcome cultural differences insofar as to uncover points of agreement to construct on in dispute resolution efforts. As such, the mediator is charged with the essential task of facilitating the dispute resolution method in a way that respects cultural differences, but that focuses on resolving a dispute to satisfaction of all parties.
To conclude, whether culture is derived from nation of origin or a multitude of other sources, it has an influence on thoughts and actions of consumers. Given these influences, culture can be observed to have a prominent function in and influence on people's interactions, which includes their disputes. If the crux of the mediator's role is to help disputing parties to locate points of agreement from which to develop dispute resolutions, and to do so in spite of cultural differences, cultural competence is 1 of the crucial capabilities in a mediator's toolkit. Cultural competence is not about a mediator suppressing, explaining, or paying lip service to cultural differences that exist among parties in a dispute. Cultural competence is about acknowledging implications of cultural differences for a dispute and its outcomes, and then transcending them in a respectful and productive manner to arrive at an optimal resolution for all disputing parties.
