Training across cultures What intercultural trainers bring to diversity training

International Journal of Intercultural Relations30(2006)401–411Training across cultures:What intercultural trainersbring to diversity trainingSandra Mumford FowlerÃ8276Caminito Maritimo,La Jolla,CA92037USAAccepted5December2005AbstractThefield of diversity training,being relatively new,can be enhanced by using some of the concepts and methods put into practice for many years by intercultural trainers.Distinguishing between diversity and intercultural training is not always easy.Currently,the two types of training differ more in terms of their goals than in other ways.Intercultural trainers offer four main components to their diversity counterparts:culture,behavior,perception,and communication.This article expands upon these components,defining them,describing the rationale for their inclusion in diversity training,and suggesting specific training methods that diversity trainers could use when incorporating these concepts into their training sessions or that intercultural trainers could use when conducting diversity training.r2005Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.Keywords:Diversity training;Intercultural training;Culture;Behavior;Perception;Communication1.IntroductionDiversity training emerged during the1980s to‘‘help businesses turn diversity into an asset and to combat the racism,sexism,and intergroup conflict being experienced in the workplace’’(Paige&Martin,1996,p.42).As relatively recent arrivals on the training scene,diversity trainers have been able to include some of the best practices tested over the/locate/ijintrel0147-1767/$-see front matter r2005Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.12.001ÃTel.:+18585461326;fax:+18585461331.E-mail address:sfowler@.years in the areas of race relations training,equal opportunity training,and human relations or sensitivity training.The close links between intercultural and human relations training are also attractive to diversity trainers.Early in the history of intercultural training,trainers were conduct-ing what came to be known as area studies.Intercultural trainers became dissatisfied with the university model of culture-specific training and turned to human relations sensitivity training in the 1970s.But it was soon discovered that sensitivity training required processing skills that many trainers did not possess and created such resistance and frustration among trainees that learning was inhibited (Hoopes &Ventura,1979).However,the experience with human relations training was not all bad.Both intercultural and diversity training were improved by two qualities associated with human relations sensitivity training:experiential methods and attention to emotions and emotional needs.In particular,the issues addressed in diversity training tend to provoke strong emotional responses that must be understood if the training design is to be appropriate and the program successful.Diversity training,because of the nature of its content,always has the potential for being controversial and stressful.2.Distinguishing between intercultural and diversity trainingThe lines between diversity and intercultural training apart can at times seem quite artificial perhaps because many methods and tools used by diversity trainers are derived or adapted from intercultural training.Two differences often mentioned when trying to distinguish between intercultural and diversity training are:the goals of the training and the organizational connection.Ferdman and Brody (1996,p.284)point out that diversity training greatly overlaps with intercultural communication training in that it often incorporates many of the same goals,but they feel there are some significant differences.It has been said that diversity training focuses on serious social problems,such as race and gender relations,that are as yet unresolved.Its goals are to promote positive intergroup relations,improve the environment of the workplace and other settings,and eliminate or at least reduce racism,sexism,and other forms of discrimination.It demands trainers who have a great deal of knowledge about the historical,cultural,political,and economic realities of the learners and who are knowledgeable about the issues of power,dominance,oppression,socioeconomic inequalities,and marginality as experienced and perceived by their clients (Paige,1996,p.153).On the other hand,the goals of intercultural training are to prepare people for more effective interpersonal relations when they interact with individuals from cultures other than their own (Brislin &Yoshida,1994,pp.2–3).Intercultural training is concerned with increasing the ability to communicate with culturally diverse people and monitoring and adjusting behavior to deal effectively with those of different cultures (Triandis,1986,p.370).Intercultural trainers must be knowledge-able about the impact of culture on people’s values,behavior,attitudes,worldview,verbal and non-verbal language,and ways of conducting personal,social,and professional business.It could be claimed that the issues of power and dominance,discrimination,and oppression are the domain of diversity training,not intercultural training,and as such theyS.M.Fowler /International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30(2006)401–411402S.M.Fowler/International Journal of Intercultural Relations30(2006)401–411403 are the central difference between intercultural and diversity training.However, recognition that power and power differentials inherent in the social and political context plays a critical part in intercultural interaction is being increasingly found in intercultural training(Paige&Martin,1996,p.37).Power inequalities are central to diversity training, but are more peripheral to intercultural training.According to Ferdman and Brody(1996),a hallmark of much diversity training is its connection to organizational needs and objectives:‘‘At a minimum diversity training implies a concern for the impact of differences among people on their interactions and on the organization including issues related to working in and with a heterogeneous workforce.More broadly,it can address issues related to the implications of diversity for organizational change as it is affected by competition,customers,products,and the marketplace’’(p.285).I contend that it is spurious to claim that intercultural and diversity training differ in their connection to organizational needs.Intercultural training is also designed to meet organizational objectives.According to Paige and Martin(1996):‘‘Throughout the1980s, international business training grew as an area of application and continues to be a major focus of intercultural training’’(p.42).Achieving the increased ability to communicate across cultures is not for strolls in the park,intercultural training is designed to increase effectiveness in business,and professional arenas as well as in the activities of everyday living in a foreign culture.In any case,both diversity and intercultural training share the obligation to meet the needs of the trainees whether they are corporate executives,government sojourners,faculty members,or exchange students(to mention just a few target audiences for both types of training).These organizations can hold widely different goals—bottom line profit versus educational development,for example—but intercultural and diversity training regularly takes place in all of these contexts.In the past,the main difference between the two types of training was that intercultural training was most often conducted to help people from one culture who would be physically moving(or already had)into another culture.Diversity training on the other hand was more likely conducted in multicultural settings(workplace or community) in which people were staying put.That is no longer as true as it once was.For example, a large college campus can be home to faculty and students from many cultures. Smaller campuses also have their own share of students and faculty from other cultures.Intercultural training is perhaps more appropriate for that context than diversity training would be.In addition,the arrival in the United States of refugees and immigrants from Southeast Asia(as well as other parts of the world)have contri-buted to the need for intercultural training of the professionals who will provide services to these people from different cultures.To take one area of service,health, it has been said that a health-care professional providing care to an Ethiopian in Nebraska is not going to worry about whether the right kind of preparation is either diversity or intercultural training.On the other hand,the patient is interested in culturally sensitive professional care and wants the care provider to have it all.Of course,the United States is only one example of a country in which a large number of refugees and immigrants require sensitive,trained health-care providers,law enforcement officers, and other service providers.This is true on each continent as increasingly populations become displaced due to forces such as ethnic conflict,economic downturn,drought, and terrorism.3.What do intercultural trainers bring to diversity training?When intercultural trainers conduct diversity training (and not surprisingly many do),they strive to help learners understand the tangible manifestations of racism,sexism,discrimination,misunderstanding,and miscommunication (Paige &Martin,1996,p.42).To achieve that understanding,intercultural trainers bring four important components to diversity training:culture,behavior,perception,and communication.These four components comprise the main strengths that diversity training receives from intercultural training.Over the years,intercultural trainers have honed their skills by using various training methods to address the main concerns of each element.Although the training methods described in the remainder of this article are not the only ways trainers can work on intercultural and diversity concerns,they offer an indication of the approach to diversity issues that an intercultural trainer might take.The methods are not likely to be new to intercultural trainers,but it may be new to think about these familiar exercises in the context of diversity training.In addition to the brief samples mentioned here,there are solid resources for locating other training materials including (among many others)Beyond Experience (Gochenour,1993);Developing Intercultural Awareness (Kohls &Knight,1994);and Intercultural Sourcebook,Vols.1&2(Fowler &Mumford,1995,1999)(Table 1).ponent 1.Culture:consider the contextBehavior is affected not only by culture but also by other factors such as organizational norms,education,age,social class,and the like,but each of these factors can be understood and manifested in a cultural context.Both intercultural and diversity trainers need to recognize that the concept of culture is not especially easy to get across since many people are accustomed to seeing the world in a certain way and are convinced that this is just the way the world is.The subtlety and depth of culture’s influence trip up even people who know that there are multiple ways of pounding the problem is that there are almost as many definitions of culture as people who have studied it.Helping trainees understand their experiences in terms of the impact cultural differences have had in the past and will have in the future holds the promise that their sensitivity and competence can be enhanced in future interactions,cooperation,or conflicts with people different from themselves.The rationale for working on the cultural component in diversity training is that the trainer can use context—the circumstances surrounding an act or event—to help people Table 1Intercultural components of diversity trainingComponentMain concern Sample training methods CultureConsider context Cultural continua BehaviorActive learning Simulation games PerceptionIntercultural perspective Perception exchange Communication Attribution of meaning Small group exerciseCulture assimilatorS.M.Fowler /International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30(2006)401–411404S.M.Fowler/International Journal of Intercultural Relations30(2006)401–411405 understand the meaning of verbal and non-verbal behavior.Context is almost completely culturally based.Context is critical for conceptualizing racism in cultural as well as personal or institutional terms,and to educate learners about how culture affects human relations,communication,and perceptions of others.Therefore,racism and sexism placed in a larger context can be seen in cultural rather than personal terms.For decades, intercultural trainers have been helping people reframe the things that happen in cross-cultural encounters from the personal to the cultural and to understand that the meaning given to these experiences can be found in one’s cultural upbringing.An important instructional goal for diversity training would be to achieve understanding of some fundamental differences between cultures.Values are a key concept in understanding cultural differences.The approach an intercultural trainer might take is tofirst describe the research-based classification of value orientations toward time,nature, human relationship,human nature,and activity developed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961).Since underlying assumptions or values guide the behavior of the people in a culture,‘‘knowledge of the basic assumptions of a people is indispensable to the interpretation of concrete behavior’’(Kluckhohn&Strodtbeck,1961,p.1).As an adjunct to this exercise,an explanation of a normal distribution,i.e.,the bell-shaped curve,is important because trainees need to understand that while most people of a culture will share certain values,there will be outliers.The next step might be to use a cultural continuum technique.This exercise was perhapsfirst described by Barnak(1979) in the original Intercultural Sourcebook.She called it a cross-cultural analysis,and used a nine-point scale requiring trainees to indicate their position(as well as the positions of typical Americans and the target culture)for a series of cultural dimensions.Examples of the dimensions and the scale anchors were Attitude Toward Change(possible with effort versus impossible to achieve)and Style of Communication(polite,vague,indirect versus frank,open,direct)(pp.164–165).Subsequently,L.Robert Kohls modified this technique by using lines(without numbers) to link the anchors of the dimensions included in the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck model. Kohls produced a handout on which thefive value orientations were placed with a line joining each end of the continuum for each orientation.Thefirst item was relationship to nature so subjugation to nature anchored the left side of the line,while mastery over nature anchored the right side of the line.In addition to the ones included in the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck model,Storti(1999)uses other cultural dimensions such as the role of context (high context versus low context)and the concept of self(individualist versus collectivist). These can be added to draw a richer picture of cultural differences.Participants develop individual profiles by placing an x on each continuum representing how strongly they feel about each value.Then by dividing into small groups according to some readily identifiable difference(e.g.,sex,age,ethnic,or national background)group positions can be ascertained.This makes it possible for individual trainees to see differences in their position relative to the mainstream for their own group.For many,this will be thefirst time they are able to articulate some of the cultural values they parison across groups brings out additional differences in value orientations.Where there is little or no gap,there is likely to be general understanding, but a large gap is a clear warning that misunderstandings,missed cues,and unfulfilled expectations might occur.In addition to showing some basic differences among cultures, the value of this exercise is a growing awareness that each person takes cultural values with them into every interaction.For diversity training,it would be important to follow the general cultural differences exercise with a similar activity using some specific workplace values.Storti (1999)uses the same technique (cultural continua)anchored by well-described,job-related concepts.He compares workplace norms across cultures by using such dimensions as power distance,source of status,and key to productivity.These can be approached in the same manner as the basic value orientations demonstrating to participants that different cultural values are operating in the workplace.This grounds workplace communication and conflicts in cultural difference and helps de-personalize them.After working individually and in small groups,participants are ready to use their insights to discuss what they can do differently in the future.Storti (1999)cautions that everything in human interaction is determined by context or specific circumstances and that ‘‘depending on those circumstances,another person’s position on power distance or source of status,for example,may or may not play a role,or at least not a deciding role,in a particular interaction.But these cultural characteristics are always there as a potential,waiting for an opportunity to show themselves’’(p.136).Although using cultural continua was the method selected to illustrate how an intercultural trainer might approach this topic,critical incidents,case studies,role-plays,and videos might work as well to help trainees understand some important basic cultural differences.The choice of method should be based on a needs assessment of the client,the comfort level of the trainer with the method,and other design considerations.Although not always true,it can usually be said that no specific method has a clear advantage over all others in presenting a training session.ponent 2.Behavior:create an active learning environmentBehavior can be defined as acting,reacting,or functioning in a particular way.Culture and behavior are closely related since culture is a core determinant of behavior or acting/responding in a particular way to one’s social or physical environment:‘‘Habits,self-definitions,norms,attitudes,and beliefs are linked to behavior’’(Triandis,1994,p.23).When an individual holds them,they become part of personality,but when they are shared,they become part of culture.Sitting and listening to a lecture is rather passive behavior,there is not much to observe.More active training affords the opportunity to observe and change behavior,develop,and practice new skills.Intercultural trainers attempt to establish a positive,active learning atmosphere,and to support,not just confront,learners.Participative training sessions are a hallmark of intercultural trainers,so much so that it might be said that intercultural trainers have a reverence for experiential learning.‘‘Participants’experience (past and present),their perceptions of the training activity,and their reactions to it determine what and how much they learn.This is in contrast to more traditional training in which the trainer or expert’s decisions,interpretation,and presentation are of utmost importance’’(Fowler &Mumford,1995,p.xvii ).The rationale for this affinity for experiential methods is that while acknowledging the need for awareness and information,intercultural trainers have learned that skills and behavior are keys to effective training.Intercultural trainers want people who are going to be living and working in another culture to be able to do it better and more effectively than they would be able to without the training.By and large,intercultural trainers believe that training people to behave in ways they would not normally behave in their home culture requires an active learning environment.S.M.Fowler /International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30(2006)401–411406S.M.Fowler/International Journal of Intercultural Relations30(2006)401–411407 In an active training environment,the experience facilitated by the trainer provides raw material that can be analyzed and the trainees can apply the lessons learned to their own lives.Many training methods are useful for this type of active learning,but some methods such as simulation games lend themselves especially well.For example,in the intercultural training classic BaFa BaFa participants quickly become a culture by learning the Alpha or Beta rules and then have the opportunity to visit the other culture to try tofigure out what is going on there to gather information that will help future visitors.During the debriefing trainees analyze their perceptions of the two cultures,and can develop strategies for entering another culture based on generalized learning from the game and life experiences. Another example,the Tag Game is quite simple and can be used for both intercultural and diversity training.To begin,trainees paper clip a badge made of construction paper somewhere between waist and neck.The badges are circles,squares,or triangles and differ in size and color.They are instructed to form groups without talking.Then again without talking,they are instructed to form new groups.This is repeated at least two more times. Several variations can add more rounds,such as asking them to put on new badges,each of these being oddly shaped,no two very much alike,then repeating the instructions to form groups without talking.Participants bring this fresh experience of the human affinity for likeness to the discussion following the activity.People usually form groups with people who have badges the same color or shape.When pushed,some will begin to look beyond the badges,but very rarely will they begin looking for difference,forming groups in which many shapes and colors are represented.The debriefing can be guided into a discussion of group-based differences in the real world and how to develop ways of introducing,valuing,and supporting difference in work groups.When the Tag Game is part of a diversity program, ingroup/outgroup distinctions are an intercultural concept that can be raised during the debriefing.Trainees relate their experience in the game to real-world experiences,often with new insight into the interpersonal dynamics of their workplace.An active learning environment puts trainees in charge of their learning.In diversity training as well as intercultural training,the same information coming from the trainer in a lecture format is not owned by the participants,it does not have the personal reference,is less easily applied to their own situation,and is more easily forgotten.The active learning environment that historically has worked well for intercultural trainers,works equally as well for diversity trainers,but this kind of training does require strong facilitation skills. Paige and Martin(1996)proposed a diversity trainer’s code of conduct:‘‘Trainers working on highly emotional issues such as prejudice and discrimination should at all times be mindful of the challenges these issues pose for their clients.Trainers should create learning environments and use training methods that will encourage such learning,rather than interfere with it,or worse,leave learners emotionally damaged’’(p.51).For this reason, there might be an advantage in some circumstances to selecting a learning activity with somewhat less risk.When a trainer is uncomfortable with simulation games or it is clear that a client would respond better to a more cognitive exercise,the culture assimilator or intercultural sensitizer(Albert,1995;Brislin,Cushner,Cherrie,&Yong,1986)could be selected to help trainees understand the meaning of actions or behavior.The culture assimilator is a programmed learning approach that has been empirically evaluated to be effective.The assimilator itself does not give trainees a chance to practice new behaviors,but it does attribute the meaning behind an action that a person in the other culture would give,thereby sensitizing the trainee to values and assumptions underlying behavior.As a bonus,skills practice can be accomplished with follow-up role-plays.A culture assimilator also helps the trainee to unlearn wrong behaviors based on stereotypes and ethnocentric beliefs.Bhawuk (2001)adds that with a culture assimilator ‘‘trainees are likely to become more receptive to cultural differences and develop a deeper understanding of why such differences exist by using theoretical explanation to unlearn their preconceptions’’(p.146).ponent 3.Perception:the intercultural perspectiveThe goal for training in the intercultural perspective is to develop an on-going capacity for interpreting and responding to the world from an alternative frame of reference.A person’s perspective on cultural differences is related to their effectiveness in other cultures.Becoming fluent in multiple perspectives is a major achievement in the quest for intercultural sensitivity and effectiveness.Bhawuk and Brislin (1992)conclude:‘‘To be effective in another culture,people must be interested in other cultures,be sensitive enough to notice cultural differences,and then also be willing to modify their behavior as an indication of respect for the people of other cultures.A reasonable term that summarizes these qualities of people is intercultural sensitivity,and we suggest that it may be a predictor of effectiveness’’(p.416).One cannot understand behavior without knowing the context from the perspective of the other.Hammer (1997)refers to the difference between monocultural and intercultural perspectives as the ‘‘main fault line’’.Interpreting everything from one’s own perspective is a monocultural perspective,but recognizing the viability of alternative interpretations is an intercultural perspective.Helping people work toward developing an intercultural perspective is as important in diversity training as in intercultural training.The rationale for this is that people must learn to recognize and value different perspectives before they can learn the skills for dealing with and working across differences.Therefore,intercultural and diversity training designed to produce insights into one’s own viewpoint as well as that of others can be defined as training in multiple perspectives.This training will use experiential methods to encourage participants to share their own experiences and perspectives in the context of the training session,as well as in the workplace and their personal lives.When the instructional goal is to learn about multiple perspectives,an exercise that can be used is the Perception Exchange developed by the Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group in the 1970s.As described in Ferdman and Brody (1996,p.296)participants are grouped according to ethnic and gender lines and instructed to draw a picture depicting their views of their organization and the experiences of different groups within it.During the debriefing,when the pictures are discussed in the whole group many participants realize for the first time that the work environment is experienced differently.This can be a profound,jarring,enriching experience.People recognize how group memberships differentially influence people at work and begin to develop a shared organizational view based on the perspectives of everyone,not just the majority or minority view.This exercise can serve as a powerful motivator for developing broad changes in the organizational culture that will lead ultimately to a more inclusive organization.Helping people develop an intercultural perspective is not easy,but well worth all the time in a training program that the facilitator can give to it since many participants bring monocultural or ethnocentric beliefs to cultural differences.Bennett (1993)contrastsS.M.Fowler /International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30(2006)401–411408。