题目内容
I doubt anyone with cross-cultural experience can read Osland and Bird" s article without remembering a moment when careful cross-cultural preparation had to be jettisoned. The moment that came to my mind was meeting a Japanese colleague on a visit to the United States. Instead of the formality and reserve I expected, he kicked off his shoes, tucked his feet under him in a chair. And leaned close to me conspiratorially saying: " So what is it really like here at corporate headquarters" His behavior made no sense within my "sophisticated stereotype" of Japanese culture, but we nonetheless found common ground and developed a good relationship. Overtime, I came to realize that he was a free spirit whose exuberant personality overrode his cultural group norms. Osland and Bird" s model is helpful in explaining this and other paradoxical experiences, and it looks as if it has broader application than traditional expatriate training. This is important because companies like mine, Kodak, have people of many nationalities who lead multicultural teams, work on multi-country projects, and travel monthly outside their home countries. In any year, they may work in Paris, Shanghai, Istanbul, Moscow, or Buenos Aires with colleagues from different set of countries. It is impossible for these global travelers to remember a sophisticated stereotype for each culture they encounter, much less develop a deep understanding of each. Kodak has also gone beyond traditional cultural training by addressing multiculturalism from a team perspective. In this regard, we developed a workbook for leaders managing global teams. The workbook explains in simple terms the roles of team members and team leaders in different cultures using Hofstede" s cultural dimension of hierarchy/equality, individualism/collectivism, task/relationship, and risk avoidance/risk comfort. But the workbook also offers the following advice, which is consistent with Osland and Bird" s thesis: "Because a team member comes from a country where a particular orientation exists does not mean that she will necessarily embody that orientation. Cross cultural tools are not flawlessly predictive, so be prepared for individual surprises and contradictions. " What can be inferred from the passage about the traditional expatriate training
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
As everyone knows, there are far too many people in the word. Or at least, there soon will be too many people, because the rate of population increase is running out of control. We are, as they say, breeding like rabbits, and rabbits are widely recognized as destructive animals. People are possibly the most serious of all pollutants. We hear this so often, from such distinguished persons, that it must be true. So we accept it. The arithmetic tells its own story and never better than in the words of Paul Ehrlich, whose Population Bomb drew the matter to our attention many years ago. " Let" s examine what might happen on the absurd assumption that the population continued to double every 37 years into the indefinite future. If growth continued at that rate for about 900 years, there would be some 60,000,000, 000,000,000 people on the face of the earth. Sixty million billion people. This is about 100 persons for each square yard of the Earth" s surface, land and sea. " Images were generated in which the entire visible universe consisted of a solid mass of human bodies. It is not really the fault of us western Europeans, Australians and North Americans. It is not in our countries that the increase is taking place. Growth is concentrated in the less industrialized countries, among the poor. The people of Whom we have, or will have, too many are poor, many of them are very poor indeed, and there seems to be little that can be done about it, beyond urging them to behave more responsibly and criticizing those who oppose the widespread provision of contraceptive devices. The choice we face in our arithmetic of poor people is between reducing one or other of the two apparent variables: the people or their poverty. In fact it is not that simple, for reducing poverty would surely encourage people to breed faster, so eliminating what we had helped them to gain at no small cost to ourselves. No matter how you look at it, the future seems pretty grim. Obviously, such a rate of growth cannot be sustained. The question centers not on whether it will end, but how, and most commentators, following the line of reasoning popularized by Paul Ehrlich, suppose the end will be disastrous. Our numbers will be reduced; sword, fire, famine and pestilence will sweep the world on an unprecedented scale. Paul Ehrlich, who was the first to use " population bomb" ______.
There" s growing______among the electorate with the old two-party system.
One of the biggest barriers to effective negotiation and a major cause of stalemate is the tendency for bargainers to get trapped in their own perspectives. It" s simply too easy for people to become overly confident of their opinions. Operating in a closed world of their making, they tell themselves they are right and the others are wrong. They consider the merits of their positions but neglect the other party" s valid objections. They push their agendas, merely with the same argument, and may not pick up on cues that their words aren" t being heard. It" s safe to assume that the other party is just as convinced that his or her own demands are justified. Moreover, bargainers can only speculate what another" s agenda might be—hidden or otherwise. Appreciative moves to draw out another" s perspective help negotiators understand why the other party feels a certain way. They signal to the other side that different opinions and perspectives are important. By creating opportunities to discover something new and unexpected, appreciative moves can break a stalemate. Everyone agreed that a joint venture negotiated by HMO executive Donna Hitchcock between her organization and an insurance company has mutual benefits on both sides. Although the deal looked good on paper, implementation stalled. Hitchcock couldn" t understand where the resistance was coming and why. In attempt to unfreeze the situation, she arranged a meeting with her counterpart from the insurance company. After a brief update, Hitchcock asked a-bout any unexpected effects the joint venture was exerting on the insurance organization and on Her counterpart" s work life. That appreciative move immediately broke the logjam. From her counterpart " s perspectives, she learned, the new arrangement stretched already overworked departments and had not yet produced additional revenues to hire more staff. Even more important, her counterpart was personally bearing the burden of the increased work. Hitchcock was genuinely sympathetic to these concerns. The extra work was legitimate obstacle to implementation. Once she understood the reason behind the resistance, the two were able to strategize on ways to alleviate the overload until the additional revenues kicked in. Many people are likely to push their agenda just because______.
As everyone knows, there are far too many people in the word. Or at least, there soon will be too many people, because the rate of population increase is running out of control. We are, as they say, breeding like rabbits, and rabbits are widely recognized as destructive animals. People are possibly the most serious of all pollutants. We hear this so often, from such distinguished persons, that it must be true. So we accept it. The arithmetic tells its own story and never better than in the words of Paul Ehrlich, whose Population Bomb drew the matter to our attention many years ago. " Let" s examine what might happen on the absurd assumption that the population continued to double every 37 years into the indefinite future. If growth continued at that rate for about 900 years, there would be some 60,000,000, 000,000,000 people on the face of the earth. Sixty million billion people. This is about 100 persons for each square yard of the Earth" s surface, land and sea. " Images were generated in which the entire visible universe consisted of a solid mass of human bodies. It is not really the fault of us western Europeans, Australians and North Americans. It is not in our countries that the increase is taking place. Growth is concentrated in the less industrialized countries, among the poor. The people of Whom we have, or will have, too many are poor, many of them are very poor indeed, and there seems to be little that can be done about it, beyond urging them to behave more responsibly and criticizing those who oppose the widespread provision of contraceptive devices. The choice we face in our arithmetic of poor people is between reducing one or other of the two apparent variables: the people or their poverty. In fact it is not that simple, for reducing poverty would surely encourage people to breed faster, so eliminating what we had helped them to gain at no small cost to ourselves. No matter how you look at it, the future seems pretty grim. Obviously, such a rate of growth cannot be sustained. The question centers not on whether it will end, but how, and most commentators, following the line of reasoning popularized by Paul Ehrlich, suppose the end will be disastrous. Our numbers will be reduced; sword, fire, famine and pestilence will sweep the world on an unprecedented scale. The passage indicates that______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付