The Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research - Houston
page 15
To submit an articles of Intercultural Interest, please contact Andrea Brooks.
A few years back, I attended an Invitational Roundtable at the World Bank
that addressed human resource development overseas. The plenary session was
opened by L. Robert Kohls of Meridian House International (Washington, D.C.).
Kohls introduced some premises which bear consideration and which will form
the basis for part of what follows.
In addition, during the past six months I have had the odd fortune to have
been selected, allegedly by random sample methods, to participate in five distinct
surveys relating to either OD or to aspects of management and human resource
development in the United States and overseas. In discussing the practice of
OD in other countries I have been forced or encouraged to review my thoughts
about applying OD in other cultures.
It is obvious that there are some people out there practicing OD in diverse
cultures around the globe (with practicing being the operative word), who have
no idea that they may not be helping anyone to achieve anything. I picture
these ubiquitous OD practitioners traipsing around the world, flip chart, masking
tape, and magic markers in hand, doing their “shtick” to nodding
heads and smiling faces that never say “No.” One can only hope
they have read the excellent article by Myers and Quill, “On the Art
of OD in Asia: Never Take Yes for an Answer.” This insightful study reveals
a number of the pitfalls OD practitioners face in that part of the world. Other
pitfalls are readily available in other cultures!
It would seem the practice of OD in other than Western (i.e., predominantly
Anglo-Saxon) countries offers some opportunities for break-throughs, but is,
often a risky business that is fraught with opportunities for failure.
To assume that people in other nations are currently equipped to cope with
OD, as it is practiced in the U.S., is to ignore levels of learning skills
that might not yet be acquired. And it tends to ignore the traditional cultural
values and their impact on learning styles, ways of doing business, and interpersonal
relation-ships.
Often at odds with the underlying OD assumptions regarding authenticity and
openness in interpersonal relations, freedom, equality, participation, an collaboration/cooperation
are the established interpersonal taboos, traditional modes of communication,
and the fear/respect factor inherent in confrontations with higher authority
figures. When these are part of the value system of the culture, they, in themselves,
have a decided impact on any OD effort.
If some of the other givens are the assumptions that OD is grounded in the
behavioral sciences, that it assumes the universal validity of empirical data
and systematic observation, and that truth is knowledgeable and predictable,
then the ability to apply OD principles and concepts seems to require a comfortable
familiarity with inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning requires moving from
the specific to the general. In OD it represents, to a very large degree, an
experiential approach.
The problem with this, then, in applying OD in other cultures, is that, according
to L. Robert Kohls, most of the world, even including much of Western Europe,
seem to have a strong preference for the deductive approach. The deductive
approach indicates a preference to move from the general to the specific and
a greater comfortableness in traditional didactic environments. If we accept
Kohis’ premise, it would appear that the world, at large, prefers the
deductive approach. Inductive appears to be “in” primarily in the
U.S., U.K., Canada, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.
Looking at Bloom’s taxonomy as a Maslow-type hierarchy of learning skills
(see Kohls’ diagram), we can readily perceive why an inductive, experiential
approach is required for introducing OD.
Hierarchy of Learning Skills @ Bloom:
6 Evaluation = Making qualitative and quantitative judgement about the value and methods and materials for specified purposes, applying a uniform standard, with accuracy, consistency and objectivity.
5.Synthesis = The putting together of elements to form a coherent whole where none existed previously, whether a written document or a plan of operation, plus the ability to formulate hypotheses and generalistions from the newly organized materials.
4.Analysis = Ability to break down a communication into its constituent elements taking into account the relative importance of each part, whether the material is explicit or implicit, thus recognizing unstated assumptions, relationships, and organizing principles.
3.Application = Ability to turn abstractions into particular and concrete examples, whether working with ideas, rules, theories, or generalized methods, plus the ability to predict the effect of changes in component factors.
2.Comprehension = Lowest level of understanding; the person is able to demonstrate he/she knows what is being communicated, by paraphrasing, interpreting (to any level of generality), or extrapolating for consequences,corollaries, or effects.
1.Knowledge = Recall of factual data, in part or in whole, terminologies, facts and figures, classification into categories, sequences, criteria, methodologies, universals, abstractions, principles, generalizations, and theories.
Kohls contends that most students from first grade in elementary school through
the Ph.D. degree, around the world, never go beyond the second level in Bloom’s
Taxonomy. Most of their activity tends to remain on the first level. By contrast,
he says, by the time American students are in the sixth grade of elementary
school they are already working well into the fourth and fifth levels of Bloom’s
Taxonomy.
Kohls believes that adult foreigners, by-and-large, have limited to no experience
of applying factual data in the multiple ways we Americans do every day of
our lives. You cannot take people who are comfortable only with the first level
and barely conversant with the second level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, suddenly
throw them into the fifth or sixth level, and expect them to survive in it.
If this is true, this may be one of the reasons why OD has not met with universal
success overseas.
This is not to say that aspects of OD cannot be successful in other cultures.
It does, however, require much preparation as individuals and teams are gradually
made to feel somewhat at ease and comfortable with OD approaches that respect
their value system and that can merge with their learning skills and styles.
Depending on the client organization, the characteristics of its leaders and
their constituency, the cultural traditions, and the political and economic
realities of the country, inductive OD interventions may be introduced and
adapted by going from the known to the unknown in small incremental steps.
Practitioners must keep in mind that clients comfortable in the deductive mode
are not quick to jump into an inductive style of thinking.
Problem solving, for example, might first be introduced deductively in traditional
didactic ways with the authority figures identifying the problem and encouraging
support of “the solution.” In subsequent sessions, the problem
might be introduced, followed by questions and answers that could help to insure
that all understand the problem and, perhaps, even “the solution.” This
could lead to question and answer sessions that helped to clarify the problem
and eventually might lead to a re-identification of the problem.
With fortuitous facilitation and some luck this might evolve into whole group
discussion of the problem and the identification of particular aspects of the
problem (i.e., financial, personnel, raw materials, plant equipment, etc.).
From this might spring small group discussions of each aspect of the problem
by those in charge of that aspect. The small groups could then report back
to the whole group.
Such series of small steps could lead to a “processing” of the
small group reports, to shared in-puts, and even aspects of group problem solving.
Over a long enough period of time this would initiate steps that could lead
to developing a consensus through the use of an inductive approach.
To foster this type of an adaptation requires an OD professional who is knowledgeable
and experienced in both cultures and who likes both cultures--the American
culture where the process developed and the target culture where the process
is to be introduced and adapted. Such professionals, using themselves as instruments,
may be able to help provide the mechanism to link the two cultural approaches
and forge an adaptive OD process that functions for that client in that environment.
Group problem-solving may not represent the zenith of an OD facilitation, but
the considerations here may be implicit in attempting an intervention in a
predominantly deductive society. As professional OD practitioners wing their
way around the world, it is to be hoped that they are not beguiled and bewitched
by the smiling faces and nodding heads that never say “No.” Rather,
it is hoped they are bothered and bewildered sufficiently to question the direct
applicability of OD in cultures other than their own.
References:
Bloom, Benjamin S. et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Handbook I:
Cognitive Domain). New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1956.
Kohls, L. Robert, “Square Pegs into Round Holes,” unpublished address
Washing-ton, D.C., February 7, 1986.
Myers, Bobbee N. and Janice Hutton Quill, “The Art of OD in Asia: Never
Take Yes for an Answer,” Procedings of the OD Network Conference, Seattle,
WA, 1981, pp.65-72.
From Vision/Action © David C. Wigglesworth. He can be reached at: dcwigg@earthlink.net
~Home~