The Mediator's Toolkit: Cultural Competence - Transcending Culture Differences in Mediation
The concept of 'culture' has different meanings and definitions. A single 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 features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by consumers in a spot or time" (Merriam-Webster). So, though culture is frequently interpreted in terms of characteristics connected to national or regional origins of an individual or group, this perspective is restricted.
Academics from areas of study which includes psychology, sociology, anthropology, business enterprise scientific studies, and communications, take into consideration how culture influences individuals' thoughts, actions and interactions. A respected professor emeritus at Maastricht University, Geert Hofstede, has published widely cited investigation in which he identifies methods of describing national cultures. As nicely, Hofstede considers the implications of national cultural characteristics on enterprise-connected practices and relationships. In specific, in his a great number of studies, Hofstede submits cultures of nations and regions are describable along the following five dimensions: power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and extended-term orientation. The central conclusion of Hofstede's research is that the way in which a nation is characterized in terms of the 5 dimensions explains, if not predicts, small business behaviours and practices of persons in and from those countries or regions.
It is worth questioning the notion that the cultural characteristics of a country or a region will clarify how all people today in that country or region will think, act, or interact. At the exact same time, there does appear to be some validity to the notion that inattention to the cultural differences can offend if not compromise the accomplishment of relationships and interactions. For instance, in business school students are reminded that cultural differences can, possibly in some instances alot more than other people, influence small business practices and affect accomplishment of cross-cultural small business interactions. Classic examples contain Japanese businessmen interpreting pointing applying the index finger as an insult or a Chinese businesswoman giving a gift in order to establish a organization relationship. A essential takeaway from these generic examples of cultural differences and Hofstede's investigation is that productive interactions with many people of completely different cultures than our personal demands consideration of cultural differences and respect for these differences, at least in order to get a well-known ground upon which to build relationships and interactions.
A crucial implication of the definition of culture provided above and the discussion of Hofstede is that culture functions as a foundation for clustering people together based on well-known cultural characteristics and distinguishing them from other people based on dissimilarities in their cultural characteristics. Nonetheless, as per the definition of culture featured above, while a person's nation 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 aspects, 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 exact same national cultural background may share particular cultural characteristics, but could possibly have radically distinct cultural identities this is because of the combination of cultural characteristics creating up each person's respective cultural identity. Further, given 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 impact the effectiveness of their communications and interactions this can take place in spite of having shared cultural characteristics, such as those associated to religion or national background. For instance, 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 a great deal more typically a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at ideal and generally a disaster."
Not only do cultural differences reasonably contribute to, even lead to, conflicts, but they can also influence the capability or willingness of interacting parties to resolve differences. More especially, the influence of culture on an individual's perspective (i.e. assumptions, expectations, beliefs), can be so strong it blinds an individual to the existence of alternative points of view. In effect, cultural differences can contribute to the unwillingness of parties in an interaction to admit there might possibly be one other 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 another perspective on a conflict or dispute. So, not only do cultural differences across disputing parties influence how each and every party thinks, acts and interacts, but it also impacts the potential for discord and the possibility and success of dispute resolution efforts.
A question that could possibly arise is: what does this have to do with mediation? As has been recommended, a essential source of conflict is distinct perspectives. As also recommended, distinct perspectives normally arise out of cultural differences. Therefore, a mediator's ability to navigate the cultural differences across disputing parties is paramount for success 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 very first spot. And, this capacity to navigate cultural differences is necessary if a mediator is to help in discovery of a resolution that appeals to all disputing parties. In impact, 'cultural competence' is an crucial 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 ought to master. Cultural competence refers to a mediator's capability to: (a) know how culture and/or cultural differences permeate a dispute (b) find methods to overcome cultural differences insofar as to discover points of agreement to build on in dispute resolution efforts. As such, the mediator is charged with the critical job of facilitating the dispute resolution approach in a way that respects cultural differences, but that focuses on resolving a dispute to satisfaction of all parties.
To conclude, no matter if culture is derived from nation of origin or a multitude of other sources, it has an influence on thoughts and actions of individuals. Given these influences, culture can be observed to have a prominent role in and influence on people's interactions, such as their disputes. If the crux of the mediator's function is to assist disputing parties to acquire points of agreement from which to create dispute resolutions, and to do so in spite of cultural differences, cultural competence is a single 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.
