Before I signed up for the cause, I thought to work in a cross-cultural setting automatically means I have an advantage on diversity issues, but the cultural dimensions helped me to see my work culture was more homogeneous than I like to admit. Though cross-cultural, my workplace lacks demographic diversity. The nature of our work determined our work population only consist of Americans and Chinese nationals. However, one type of diversity we do demonstrate at work lie in the area of psychological diversity. Our staff professional variety goes from recent college graduate to senior staff with decades of experiences. The Chinese staff includes people from all over the country, while the American Officers bring in even more psychological diversity with their different religious background, previews posting experience, and expertise. This dynamic also shows in the way staff differ in task approach, educational background, and skill (Levi, 2016).
I discovered another connection with cultural dimensions and self-realization when I compared the individualistic and collective cultures’ view desired leadership personality traits. As someone who identifies more with the collectivistic culture, my introverted personality fits in with the culture’s emphasis on group identity and unity. Susan Cain (2012) argues in her well-researched book on introversion that the western society has always favored action over contemplation. Being an introverted leader in Chinese culture indicates someone who listens, focuses on the group, and contemplative; someone who is not here to steal the spotlight. On the contrary, the idea of a leader in the U.S. is someone who speaks up, who is assertive, charismatic, and self-promoting. Cain’s book provides me the cultural understanding and support I needed as an introvert. The cultural dimension further helped me to discover the Western society’s view of favor on extraversion and leadership.
Team Assessment for Group Projects
This course has also helped me to view team effectiveness in a new light. When we formed the teams for our R1 assignment, we signed up for groups based on project topic preference. The teams were grouped randomly instead of out of personal choice or acquired skill-set. Similarly, I joined my R4 at the beginning of the semester without knowing much about my teammates. For both groups, we scheduled video calls to walk through the assignment requirements together early in our communication. We also developed specific norms for the project, such as dividing the workload and assign different roles to each member.
Since we established our norms very early on during the project, we did not experience much storming stage. People completed their tasks on time, and there has not been any direct conflict or relationship conflict. The only disagreement we have encountered were task-oriented, such a group call schedule, division of labor and other logistical issues. According to Levi (2016), when handled well, task-conflict brings positive results to the team because it builds a bridge for different opinions to merge. During the performing stage, we tried to set different checkpoints to talk to each other about our project progresses. With our regular calls and other opportunities to connect during the semester such as peer-to-peer calls, our meetings became less formal. Eventually, we transitioned into an informal group and developed a genuine friendship over the course.
By comparing the two group project team
