ETHNOCENTRISM (part C)
by
Charles Lamson
Negative Aspects of Ethnocentrism
Like many other things, ethnocentrism in moderation can be positive. However, if taken too far, ethnocentrism can become a very negative orientation, for both individuals and organizations. It is particularly dangerous for either. It is usually very easy to see ethnocentrism in others, but it is usually difficult to recognize it in oneself or one's organization. Some of the people who complain the loudest about being mistreated by some other cultural, or sub-cultural group, are also among the most ethnocentric people you will find. However, they will deny their own ethnocentrism loudly, while decrying this very evil in other people and organizations around them.
There are four potentially serious problems for communication in organizations which emanate from ethnocentrism: culture shock, stereotyping, prejudice, and excessive cohesiveness. This post will consider each of these in turn.
 |
Culture Shock. Culture shock was not fully identified and described until 1960 (Oberg, 1960). Culture shock is something almost everyone experiences when they move into a new cultural environment. Whether the move is from one continent to another, or just from home to a nearby college, some degree of trauma is likely to be experienced. Given the mobility of society today, this means that almost everyone will experience it at some time in their lives, and many will experience it several times. That trauma is now commonly referred to as "culture shock." If you have never experienced it; when you do, "shock" will not seem too strong a word to describe it. At the extreme culture shock has been found to result in complete mental breakdown and even suicide. The greater the actual difference between the old and new culture (or subculture) the greater the shock. Similarly, the higher one's ethnocentrism, the greater the shock.
While we do not realize it, we become acculturated to work in our first job. We develop a concept of work based on that experience. Each time we take a new job, we have to revise that concept to fit the new organization's culture. When we take a new job in another organization, initially, we take the old culture with us. If the new culture is not very different from the old one, or we have very low ethnocentrism, we may adapt to the new position quickly. If the new culture is very different, or if because we are highly ethnocentric, we perceive the new culture to be very different, we are then likely to experience severe culture shock, and all that goes with it.
Highly ethnocentric organizations are not likely to recognize that new employees are experiencing culture shock. They see their culture as very open and accepting - and normal. Any problems in adaption by new employees are seen as weaknesses, or personality defects, in the new people. Some organizations develop programs to help new employees make the transition to the new culture. These programs socialize the new people to fit within the organization's culture. Over time, both the organization and the new employees adapt to each other, and the new people are assimilated within the organizational culture.
Stereotyping is the processing of forming generalizations about people based on their membership in a culture, or subculture. Many stereotypes are fully accurate and correct, and still others are completely inaccurate (Lee, Jussim, & McCauley, 1995). Such generalizations serve as a means of organizing our experiences with others. We need them so we may better predict how people will respond to our communication efforts. It is important that we be able to recognize that individuals often differ substantially in important ways from other members of their own culture. Ethnocentrism interferes with this recognition. As a result, highly ethnocentric people are willing to generalize their stereotypes to people for whom the stereotype clearly (to less ethnocentric observers) does not apply. The more ethnocentric an organization's culture, the more absolute will be the stereotypes in the collective consciousness of its members. Even if an individual employee recognizes the falsity of the stereotype (her sister works for the stereotyped company), they may feel strong pressure to remain silent.
Prejudice refers to a "a priori judgments" based on inadequate stereotypes. The term "a priori judgments" references judgments made in advance of the time when they are employed. By "inadequate stereotypes" we mean the basis for the stereotypes is insufficient (or inaccurate) information.
Excessive cohesiveness may at first appear to be an oxymoron. We want our work groups to be cohesive. Cohesiveness is good. It enables people to work together. All true, but as is usually the case, it is possible to have too much of a good thing, groups which are highly ethnocentric. Organizational culture generally exaggerates the "in group"/"out-group" distinction discussed in earlier posts. Their own cohesion is highly valued, while members of other groups---even with the same organization---can be seen as enemies. Extremely high cohesiveness increases stereotyping and prejudice against out-group members, and leads to a decline in decision-making quality. In the worst case scenario, it can lead to what is called groupthink.
Organizations exist within cultures, and cultures exist within organizations. To fully understand how an organization works (much less why), we must make ourselves aware of both of these powerful influences. As peons in an organization, nothing may be as we see it initially. Consequently, we need to exercise great caution in drawing any conclusions, good or bad, about what is going on in our new cultural world. We must take time to get more information, be aware of our own ethnocentrism, as well as that present in the organizational culture, and remain open to changing any conclusions we may draw.
*ORANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 150-152*
END
|
No comments:
Post a Comment