Intercultural communications final

Explain the five conflict styles with clear examples

- The dominating (or competitive/controlling) style emphasizes conflict tactics that push for one's own position above and beyond the other person's interest. The dominating style includes aggressive, defensive, controlling, and intimidating tactic - The avoiding style involves dodging the topic, the other party, or the situation altogether. This style includes behavior ranging from glossing over the topic and denying that conflict exists to leaving the conflict scene. - The obliging (or accommodating) style is characterized by a high concern for the other person's conflict interest above and beyond one's own conflict position. Individuals tend to use the obliging style when they value their relationship more than their personal conflict goal. They tend to either smooth over the conflict or give in to the wishes of their conflict partners. - The compromising style, however, involves a give-and-take concession approach to reach a mid-point agreement concerning the conflict issue. In using the compromising style, individuals tend to use fairness appeals, tradeoff suggestions, or other quick, short-term solutions. It is an intermediate style resulting in some gains and some losses for each party. - the integrating (or collaborative) style reflects a commitment to find a mutual-interest solution and involves a high concern for self-interest and also a high concern for the other person's interest in the conflict situation. In using an integrative style, individuals tend to use nonevaluative descriptive messages, qualifying statements, and mutual-interest clarifying questions to seek common-ground solutions. This is the most time-consuming style of the five conflict styles. *Johnson (1986) equated the five dif- ferent styles to the following animals: shark = dom- inating style, turtle = avoiding, teddy bear = obliging, fox = compromising, and owl = integrating.

Compare independent-self versus interdependent-self conflict lens and characteristics

- Using an independent-self conflict lens, a person often views conflict from (1) a content conflict goal lens, which emphasizes tangible conflict issues above and beyond relationship issues; (2) a clear win-lose conflict approach, in which one person comes out as a winner and the other person comes out as a loser; (3) a "doing" angle, in which something tangible in the conflict is broken and needs fixing; and (4) an outcome-driven mode, in which a clear action plan or resolution is needed. Have you ever noticed that during team presentations in class, a team member may say, "For my part of the project, I did...." This person makes every effort to bring attention to his or her individual accomplishments. From this individualistic conflict lens, the person wants to stand out and be noticed for all of his or her task accomplishments. follows an outcome-oriented model - . Using an interdependent-self conflict lens, a person often views conflict from (1) a relational process lens, which emphasizes relationship and feeling issues; (2) a win- win relational approach, in which feelings and "faces" can both be saved; (3) a "being" angle, in which relational trust must be repaired and loyalty must be amended to preserve relational harmony; and (4) a long-term compromising negotiation mode that has no clear winner or loser in the ongoing conflict. For example, team projects are often difficult for collectivists because they are always the ones who will stay up all night working on the last-minute presentation details—especially when one or two members have failed to carry the workload that was distributed. In their team presentations, collectivists will also often use phrases such as "as a team, we . . . " and "we worked hard" to save the team face and put the best group face forward. Overall, independent-self types are concerned with conflict outcome closure, whereas interdependent-self types are concerned with interpersonal and ingroup face-saving and face-honoring process issues. These implicit conflict lenses or assumptions taint many intercultural perceptions and orientations concerning antagonistic conflict episodes

Relate individualism-collectivism orientations to personal relationship themes

- individualistic orientation. I-identity relationship expectations Couple's privacy and autonomy needs Voluntary personal commitment Low-context emotional expressions Unique relational culture -Collectivistic orientation. Ingroup relationship pressures Ingroup's connection and concerns Family and social reactions High-context emotional expressions Conventional relational culture

Define and use examples to illustrate identity-based conflict goals.

- means face-saving and face-honoring issues in a conflict episode. They are basically about self-respect (face-saving) and other-consideration (face-honoring) issues in a conflict situation. Recall from Chapter 4 that identity-based goals can involve respectful or disrespectful attitudes concerning three identity issues in conflict: cultural, social, and personal. For example, although an interfaith couple is arguing about which religious faith they should instill in their children (cultural or social identity), they are also asserting the worthiness of their own particular religious beliefs (personal identity). To the extent that the couple can engage in a constructive dialog about this important issue, the conflict can act as a catalyst for their relationship growth. However, many intercultural or interfaith couples may not possess the necessary conflict skills to deal with important identity issues constructively

explain the benevolent approach to work-place conflict

- the benevolent approach reflects a combination of a collectivistic and large power distance value orientation; many managers in other parts of the globe tend to see themselves as interdependent and at a different status level than others. That is, these managers think of themselves as individuals with interlocking connections with others and as members of a hierarchical network. They practice the benevolent approach (a combination of collectivism and large power distance value patterns) in approaching a conflict problem. The term "benevolent" implies that many managers play the authoritative parental role in approaching or motivating their employees. Two values that pervade this approach are obligation to others and asymmetrical interaction treatment. Countries and large corporate cultures that predominantly reflect the benevolent approach include most Latin and South American nations (e.g., Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, and Chile), most Asian nations (e.g., India, Japan, China, and South Korea), most Arab nations (e.g., Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan) and most African nations (e.g., Nigeria and Uganda). For many large East Asian corporations, for example, Confucian-driven hierarchical principles promote a type of parent-child relationship between the manager and the subordinate. Under the benevolent conflict approach, although a manager can confront her or his employees to motivate them to work harder, it is very rare that subordinates will directly challenge the manager's authority during a conflict interaction. However, subordinates might opt for using passive- aggressive or sabotage conflict strategies to deal with workplace tensions or frustrations. In dealing with low-importance conflicts, managers would consider using the "smooth over" relational tactics or subtle pressure tactics to gain employees' compliance. However, in dealing with high-importance conflicts, benevolent managers could act in a very directive or autocratic and controlling manner. They might also practice preferential treatment by treating senior employees more favorably than junior employees or family network friends more generously than peripheral workplace members.

Explain the communal spproach to work-place conflict

- the communal approach consists of a combination of collectivistic and small power distance value orientation; the least common of the four conflict workplace approaches. The values that encompass this approach are authentic interdependent connection to others and genuine equality via respectful communication exchanges at all levels. Research to date has shown that Costa Rica is the only country found to fit this approach (Hofstede, 2001). Nonprofit mediation centers or successful start-up small businesses also appear to practice some of the communal decision-making behaviors and participatory democracy so that everyone has a say, and they also often take turns to rotate democratic leadership. In the commu- nal approach, the importance of mindful listening skill, interpersonal validation skill, and collaborative dialog skill are emphasized

describe the three e.netizen identities

-"gliding e.netizen identity" individuals who have weaker attachment with the wired commu- nity and reflect the larger international group mem- bership. These individuals have stronger ties with the local culture and see the Internet and technology as a hobby and a way to gather information and to be provided with surface entertainment. Although surf- ing the Net is fun, gliding e.netizens have little, if any strong affiliation with groups sites on the Internet. There is surface-level influence on their communica- tion behavior, purchasing power, and decision-making outcomes. -"interfaced e.netizen identity" in which individuals have moder- ately strong ties to the Internet. These individuals have interfaced ties with the global Internet community on one hand and also continue their local community ties with other individuals in real time. They are connected to the latest news, trends, and pop culture via the wired and the wireless community and also have a selective "buy in" factor with certain sites (e.g., interest hobby sites, blogs, or online dating sites) via the Internet. The interfaced e.entizens are influenced by global and local trends. They use social media platforms to communi- cate and follow some online communities. -the "fixated e.netizen identity" lies at the deep layer of our triangle. These individuals have strong attachment and solidarity to their e-netizen identity. These fixated e.netizens are continuously hooked and wired up, expressing their daily lives via a multitude of social media platforms. They live their daily real- ity via the virtual reality. Savvy and curious, the fixated e.netizen is a tribal community member and an ulti- mate online consumer—of news, brands, and prod- ucts (see Figure 11.2). These global, fixated e.netizens are vigilant advocates of the Internet and spend much of their time looking at the screen in front of them, or texting, or Tweeting even if they are in a face-to-face group.

Define and use examples to illustrate content conflict goals

-By content goals, we mean the practical issues that are external to the individuals involved. For example, an interfaith couple might argue about whether they should raise their children to be Muslim or Mormon, or an intercultural couple might disagree about whether they should raise their children as bilinguals or monolinguals. Intercultural business partners might argue about whether they should hold their business meetings in Montreal, Hamburg, or Atlanta. Content conflict goals also affect the perceptions of relational and identity goals. -

Explain face-negotiation theory and describe how facework differs between individualists and collectivists

-Face-negotiation theory helps to explain how individualism-collectivism value patterns influence the use of diverse conflict styles in different cultural situations. The premise of the theory is that members who subscribe to individualistic values tend to be more self-face-oriented and members who subscribe to group-oriented values tend to be more other- or mutual-face-oriented in conflict negotiation. The face orientation, shaped by the various cultural, personality, and situational factors, frames our different motivations to use different conflict styles. Individuals who are more self-face-oriented tend to use a direct, low-context conflict style to assert their rights in a conflict situation. Individuals who are more other-face- or mutual-face-oriented tend to use an indirect, high- context conflict style to maintain other or mutual face and to preserve relational harmony . The more independent or individualistic you are, the more likely you are to use a linear logic, low-context approach in managing your conflict. The more interdependent or collectivistic you are, the more likely you are to use a spiral logic, high-context approach in dealing with your conflict. Research (e.g., in China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, and the United States) clearly indicates that individualists tend to use more self-defensive, dominating, and competitive conflict styles in managing disputes than do collectivists. In comparison, collectivists tend to use more integrative and compromising styles in dealing with conflict than do individualists.

recommend specific skills to deal with IC conflict constructively

-Practice patience and mindful observation: Take five seconds before verbally articulating your feelings. Be mindful of past events that bear relevance to the present conflict situation and also limit the number of verbal why questions—because collectivists typically focus on the nonverbal how process -Practice mindful listening skills: Attend to the sound, movement, and emotional experience of the other person. This indicates that one person is attending to the other person's identity and relational expectation issues; remember that the word listen can become silent by rearranging the letters. -Be mindful of the mutual face-saving premises in a collectivistic culture, especially the use of specific facework skills in managing the delicate balance of humiliation and pride, respect and disrespect, and shame and honor issues.

Explain the impartial approach to work-place conflict

A)The impartial approach reflects a combination of an individualistic and small power distance value orientation; -the predominant values of this approach are personal freedom and equal treatment. If an interpersonal conflict arises between a manager and an employee, the manager has the responsibility to deal with the conflict in an objective, upfront, and decisive manner. The employee is sometimes invited to provide feedback and reactions to the fact-finding process. He or she can also ask for clear justifications and evidence from the manager. In an equal-rank employee-employee conflict, the manager would generally play the "impartial" third-party role and would encourage the two employees to talk things over and find their own workable solution. Managers in large corporations in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway appear to practice the impartial conflict communication approach

Compare the terms ethical absolutism, ethical relativism, derived ethical universalism, meta-ethics contextualism

Ethical absolutism emphasizes the principles of right and wrong in accordance with a set of universally fixed standards regardless of cultural dif- ferences. Under the ethical absolutism position, the importance of cultural context is minimized. Thus, the idea of universality means that one set of consis- tent standards would guide human behavior on a global, universal level. The positive aspect of ethical absolutism is that one set of fixed standards is being applied to evalu- ate a range of practices, thus preserving cross-situa- tional consistency. The negative aspect is that ethical absolutism is a "culturally imposed" perspective that reflects the criteria set forth by members in the dom- inant cultures or groups - ethical relativism, emphasizes the importance of understanding the cultural context in which the problematic conduct is being judged. Under the ethical relativism position, the critical role of cultural context is maximized. It is important to elicit the interpretations and to understand problematic cases from the cultural insiders' viewpoint. The notion of relativism values understanding and evaluating behavior in accordance with the underlying traditions, beliefs, and values of the particular culture; these factors determine the evaluation of that behavior as appropriate or inappropriate. However, the danger is that this view encourages too much cultural flexibility and ignores ethical principles that are developed beyond each cultural context. Thus, evaluative standards of ethical behavior are closely related to the conventional customs in each cultural context. These standards can then vary from place to place, group to group, and culture to culture. Furthermore, ethical relativism can continue to perpetuate intolerable cultural practices (e.g., female genital mutilation in Somalia and Sudan). Dominant groups in a society are often the ones that preserve cruel or intolerable cultural practices for their own gratification. They also perpetuate those practices that reinforce the status quo, which maintains its one-upmanship and keeps nondominant groups in subservient, powerless roles. - derived ethical-universalism position, emphasizes the importance of deriving universal ethical guidelines by placing ethical judgment within the proper cultural context. Evaluations about "good" or "bad" behaviors require knowledge about the underlying similarities across cultures and about the unique features of a culture . A derived ethical universalism approach highlights an integrative culture-universal and culture-specific interpretive framework. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. Although a derived universalistic stance is an ideal goal to strive toward, it demands collaborative dialog, attitudinal openness, and hard work from members of all gender, ethnic, and cultural groups. It demands that all voices be heard and affirmed. It also demands equal power distributions among all groups that represent a diverse range of cultures. Furthermore, under authentic trusting conditions, representatives of diverse groups should also be able to speak up with no fear of sanctions. . Ethical universalism is an ideal goal to strive for—especially when multinational and multicultural efforts have been made to include representative members from all disenfranchised groups to share their visions, dreams, and hopes. But its easier said than done. - A more reasonable, analytical perspective for guiding our ethical struggles in contemporary society may be that of the meta-ethics contextualism position (Ting- Toomey, 1999, 2011). This approach emphasizes the importance of understanding the problematic practice from a layered, contextual stance. meta-ethics contextual approach means that the application of ethics can be understood only through a systematic analysis of the multiple layers of the ethical dilemma. Engaging in in-depth case-by-case analysis, individuals who hold a meta-ethics stance actively seek out panoramic 360-degree viewpoints on the ethical dilemma case. They also emphasize differentiated person-by-person considerations, situation-by-situation probes, intention-and-consequence comparative foci, and inclusion of macro (e.g., cultural worldviews), exo (e.g., formal institutions such as the court rulings), meso (e.g., media, community, or workplace standpoints), and micro (e.g., intercultural-interpersonal message exchanges) analytical lenses. The strength of this approach is that it emphasizes in-depth fact-finding and layer-by-layer interpretations. It also takes into serious consideration the importance of culture, context, persons, intentions, means, consequences, and global humanism. The problem is that the meta-ethics contextual perspective is a time-consuming approach that involves a great amount of human power, hard work, fact-finding, and collaborative back-and-forth negotiation from diverse cultural groups. The plus side is that, in the long run, the time invested to understand a problematic practice from multiple contextual angles may ultimately help to save time and prevent further human suffering.

Discuss facework management, mindful listening, and reframing

Facework skills address the core issues of protecting our own communication identity during a conflict episode and, at the same time, allowing us to deal with the communication identity of the other conflict party. All human beings value the feeling of being respected and being accepted—especially during vulnerable conflict interactions. How individuals protect and maintain self-face needs and, at the same time, how they learn to honor the face needs of the other conflict party very likely differs from one culture to the next and from one particular conflict scene to the next. On a general level, both individualists and collec- tivists must learn to save face strategically and give face appropriately to each other during a conflict episode. Self-oriented face-saving behaviors are attempts to regain or defend one's image after threats to face or face loss. Other-oriented face-giving behaviors are attempts to support others' face claims and work with them to prevent further face loss or help them to restore face constructively. Giving face means not humiliating others, especially one's conflict opponents, in public. Mindful listening is a face-validation and power-sharing skill. In a conflict episode, the disputants must try hard to listen with focused attentiveness to the cultural and personal assumptions that are being expressed in the conflict interaction (see Table 9.2). They must learn to listen responsively or ting (the Chinese word for listening means "attending mindfully with our ears, eyes, and a focused heart") to the sounds, tone, gestures, movements, nonverbal nuances, pauses, and silence in a given conflict situation. In mindful listening, facework negotiators tend to practice dialogic listening, one-pointed attentiveness, mindful silence, and responsive words and posture. Mindful reframing is a highly creative, mutual-face- honoring skill. It means creating alternative contexts to frame your understanding of the conflict behavior. Just as in changing a frame to appreciate an old painting, creating a new context to understand the conflict behavior may redefine your interpretation of the behavior or conflict event. Reframing is the mindful process of using language to change the way each person defines or thinks about experiences and views the conflict situation . The following are some specific suggestions for mindful reframing: (1) restate conflict positions into common-interest terms, (2) change complaint statements into requests, (3) move from blaming statements to mutual-focused, problem-solving statements, (4) help those in conflict recognize the benefits of a win-win synergistic approach, and (5) help conflict parties understand the "big picture."

Compare monotrack focus and multitrack focus and offer tips to manage these differences

More specifically, monotrack e.netizens concentrate on one task at a time. While they are working on a task project on the computer, they may find it difficult to e-mail, text, and talk to someone right next to them at the same time. They enjoy the focused energy of mulling over the unfolding online news or watching a YouTube video intensely and reflecting on its implications. However, multitrack e.netizens can be quite adept at multitracking—working on multiple projects, such as surfing, texting, and blogging. The e.net multitrack individuals also adhere to a being-in- doing value philosophy. While on the Net, they can chat with friends across the globe, access daily news- papers in several languages, and download new song releases. The being-in-doing e.net philosophy means that e.net multitrack individuals can fuse the "being mode" value dimension with the "doing mode" value dimension—they can be fully enjoying the here-and- now moment, spending being time with their multiple friends on Facebook and Twitter, and also doing other task activities. Although the e-netizen monotracker can focus only on one thing at a time and tends to compartmentalize task projects and relational fun chat on the net, the multitrackers can move in and out smoothly between task activities and relational activities in a split second. Which temporal pull do you move to? If you are at a baseball game, do you watch the game with a gadget in your hand? If you are monotrack, you probably do not and will take issue with your friend(s) who do.

Understand the research findings on cultural/ethnic differences in conflict management styles

On the personal attributes level, independent- self individuals tend to use more competitive/dominating conflict styles than do interdependent-self individuals, and interdependent-self individuals tend to use more avoiding, obliging, integrating, and compromising styles than do independent-self individuals -In terms of different ethnic conflict styles and face- work behaviors, most conflict research has focused on European American conflict styles in both interpersonal and organizational conflict domains. Overall, European Americans tend to prefer solution-based conflict strategies and tend to compartmentalize socioemotional conflict issues separately from task- based conflict issues more than do African Americans. European Americans also tend to use more dominating/controlling conflict strategies in dealing with romantic relationships than do Asian Americans -Research also reveals that African Americans tend to be more emotionally engaged in their conflict approach, whereas European Americans tend to be more emotionally restrained in their conflict discussions -In terms of Asian American conflict orientation, research shows that the philosophy of Confucianism strongly influences proper facework and conflict enactment. Asian Americans who adhere to traditional Asian values tend to use avoiding or obliging conflict styles to deal with a conflict at hand. They sometimes also use "silence" as a powerful, high-context conflict style. In the context of traditional Latino/a Americans' conflict practices, tactfulness and consideration of others' feelings are considered important facework norms. Tactfulness is conveyed through the use of other- oriented facework rituals, such as the use of accommodation (i.e., "smoothing over") and avoidance conflict behaviors -In comparison, Native Americans prefer the use of verbal restraint and self-discipline in emotional expressions during conflict.

Recommend guidelines to manage diverse IC-intimate relationships

Pay close attention to culture-based chal- lenges in developing an intercultural-intimate relationship. • Be mindful that individualists and collectivists hold different expectations concerning commu- nication issues, such as dating requests or self- disclosure. • Be sensitive to your relational partner's family reaction issues. Learn to deal with the individual- istic and collectivistic value gaps adaptively. • Be committed to developing a deep friendship with your intimate partner as a cushion to deal with both internal and external stressors down the road. Be unconditionally accepting of your partner's core personality. You must make your partner feel that you try hard to understand the cultural and religious (or nonreligious) contexts that she or he is coming from. • Be flexible in learning the communication styles of your intimate partner and learn to code-switch from direct to indirect styles or from verbal to nonverbal attending behaviors. • Be responsive to the "emotional tasks" awaiting you in your intimate relationship and learn to share them responsibly and with enjoyment. • Be diligent in depositing emotionally supportive messages into your relationship. 5-1 ratio.

Discuss the research findings on IC interpersonal attraction

Perceived similarity refers to how much people think others are similar or dissimilar to themselves. It implies the perception of shared views in beliefs, values, attitudes, communication, interests, and/or hobbies. For example, Morry (2005) found that same-sex friends perceived themselves to be happier individuals the more they reported being similar to their friends. The similarity-attraction perspective (Byrne, 1971) has received intense attention in intergroup-interpersonal attraction research for the past three decades. The argument behind this perspective (with a distinct individualistic-based focus) claims that individuals are motivated to maintain or increase their positive self- evaluation by choosing to associate with others who reinforce dimensions relevant to the self (i.e., birds of a feather flock together). The similarity-attraction hypothesis supports this assumption: a positive relationship exists between perceived similarity and interpersonal attraction. There are three possible explanations to account for this hypothesis: (1) we experience cognitive consistency if we hold the same attitude and outlook in our relationship; (2) cognitive consistency reinforces our ego and provides identity rewards and affirmation; and (3) with similar others, we tend to invest less time and energy in managing relational vulnerable feelings, which gives a boost to interpersonal attraction. -. Additionally, research studies indicated that the more the relational partners in initial interethnic encounters hold similar viewpoints concerning communication orientations (e.g., ways to support each other's self-concepts, ways to comfort each other), the more they are attracted to each other -In addition, people may be attracted to dissimilar strangers if they have repeated chances to interact with them under favorable contact conditions and with a positive mindset. Proximity, together with perceived similarity, definitely influences initial intercultural attraction.

Identify some of the obstacles facing IC-intimate couples and their coping strategies

Some of the prominent conflict sources are cultural-ethnic value clashes, prejudice and racism issues, and raising bicultural and biracial children. -Most interracial couples, however, have devel- oped specific coping strategies to deal with recurring prejudice and race situations. These coping strate- gies include ignoring/dismissing (especially for minor offenses, such as staring or nasty comments), normaliz- ing (thinking of themselves and appealing to others to treat them as "normal" couples with marital ups and downs), and withdrawing (avoiding places and groups of people who are hostile to interracial couples). In addition, they use educating (outreach efforts to help others to accept interracial couples), confrontation (addressing directly the people who insult or embar- rass them), prayer (relying on faith to solve problems), and humor (adding levity in distressing situations) to ease or ward off the pains of racism (McNamara et al., 1999). Partners usually use ignoring/dismissal cop- ing strategies to deal with minor threats but use more direct strategies—such as educating and confronting— when countering major racist comments or slur

Discuss the role of the Internet and other technologies in shaping and transforming communication

The Internet allows users to develop relationships across the barriers of time, space, geography, and cultural-ethnic boundaries. Of course, we realize that this global space is also a very privileged space—accessible only to members and cultural groups who have the access and means to afford such technological resources and updates. It also privileges individuals who can use English comfortably as a medium of Internet communication. It has been estimated that approximately 605 million people use the Internet on a daily basis, and they e-mail each other across diverse age groups and diverse cultural boundaries—from Mongolia to Argentina and from Iceland to New Zealand -More importantly, we now have shared experiences across time and space, allowing us to communicate in real time about events that unfold thousands of miles away. By communicating, we mean by the various media outlets.

Explain the convergence and divergence of local and global identities

The local identity is made up of the ethnic values, practices, and traditions of the local identity communal group. In a sense, "the strengthening of local ties offers a way of grounding identity and loyalty in a very fast-paced and much criticized global world" the global identity is made up of individuals who adopt and embrace international practices and val- ues over local practices. In an attempt to replace the preference of local culture, global culture keeps up with the latest trends, technological advances, international programming, and consumer materialism. Think Mcweddings.

Discuss the key meta-ethics guidelines and questions to consider when encountering culture-based ethical situations

The term meta-ethics basically refers to the cultivation of an ethical way of thinking in our everyday lives that transcends any particular ideological position -You may also think of the following two questions in making a final meta-ethical decision: (1) Can you think of creative solutions other than the ones investigated? and (2) Is there any way to prevent similar ethical dilemmas from arising in the future in this culture? -we must mindfully ask ourselves the following questions when we encounter culture-based tug-and-pull ethical situations: 1. Who or which group perpetuates this practice within this culture and with what reasons? 2. Who or which group resists this practice and with what reasons? Who is benefiting? Who is suffering—voluntarily or involuntarily? 3. Does the practice cause unjustifiable suffering to an individual or a selected group of individuals at the pleasure of another group? 4. What is my role and what is my "voice" in this eth- ical dilemma? 5. Should I condemn/reject this practice publicly and withdraw from the cultural scene? 6. Should I go along and find a solution that recon- ciles cultural differences? 7. Can I visualize alternative solutions or creative outcomes that can serve to honor the cultural tra- ditions and at the same time get rid of the intoler- able cultural practice? 8. At what level can I implement this particular cre- ative solution? Who are my allies? Who are my enemies? 9. Should I act as a change agent in the local cultural scene via grassroots movement efforts? 10. What systematic changes in the culture are needed for the creative solution to sustain itself and filter through the system?

Define the e.netizen identity and describe the three e.netizen identities

We can view an e.netizen identity as a composite iden- tity that is shaped by technology, popular culture, and mass consumption. An e.netizen can have both inter- nal and external facets. Internally, one can hold hybrid components of ethnic-cultural values (e.g., collectiv- ism and individualism) and contemporary aspects of being-in-doing value orientations. In addition, the e.netizen can swing flexibly between the HCC and LCC systems. An individual with an e.netizen identity has a sense of communal belonging on a global level. She is linked in with diverse yet like-minded indi- viduals who actively carve out a social network com- munity fervently via blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. In essence, they are flexible communicators and highly adaptabl

Explain the status-achievement approach to work-place conflict

consists of a combination of an individualistic and large power distance value orientation; -the predominant values of this approach are personal freedom and earned inequality. For example, in France, employees often feel that they have the freedom to voice directly their complaints about their managers in the workplace. At the same time, they do not expect their managers to change much because they are their bosses and thus, by virtue of their titles, hold certain rights and power resources. The managers, meanwhile, also expect conflict accommodations from their subordinates; subordinates may be free to complain, but the manager is the authority and makes the final decisions. When the conflict involves two same-rank coworkers, the use of upfront conflict tactics to aggressive tactics is a hallmark of the status-achievement approach. Ting- Toomey and Oetzel also observed that U.S. management style often follows a combined impartial approach and status-achievement approach: the larger U.S. culture emphasizes that with individual hard work, personal ambition, and fierce competitiveness, status and rank can be earned and status cues can be displayed with pride and credibility.

Define and use examples to illustrate relational conflict goals

refers to how individuals define the particular relationship (e.g., intimate vs. nonintimate, informal vs. formal, cooperative vs. competitive) or would like to define it in the interactive situation. Relational conflict goals also involve mismatched relationship expectation issues. For example, individualists generally crave more privacy and collectivists generally desire more connectedness in an intimate relationship. The struggle to define independence and interdependence can cause chronic relationship problems in many intercultural couples. In a business setting, if one business partner (from Sydney) opts to scribble a note and fax it to another international partner (from Jakarta), the latter might view this gesture as a signal of disrespect for proper professional distance. The Jakartan partner perceives the informal gesture of a scribbled note as a violation of formal business exchange. However, the Sydney business partner may not realize that he or she has committed a faux pas by sending this casual message; the informal note was actually intended to indicate "pleasant friendliness" and "closer distance" for the sake of establishing a relaxed working atmosphere.

Internalize and understand the final IC communication flexibility-passport guidelines

• Flexible intercultural communication is adaptive. • Flexible intercultural communication is creative. • Flexible intercultural communication is experimental. • Flexible intercultural communication is making detours and having the courage to try again. • Flexible intercultural communication is knowing thyself on a continuous basis. • Flexible intercultural communication is other- centered. • Flexible intercultural communication is about identity respect issues. • Flexible intercultural communication is the inten- tional development of mindfulness. • Flexible intercultural communication is making hard, ethical choices. • Flexible intercultural communication is a develop- mental, lifelong learning journey.

Suggest ways to boost security in biracial/bicultural children

• Have knowledge of the cultural values and beliefs of each group; • Have a positive attitude toward both minority and majority groups; • Have the confidence that one can live effectively within the bicultural groups without compromis- ing one's individual identity; and • Be grounded -First, take time and make a commitment to work out a family identity process as early in your relationship as pos- sible; understand the important aspects of your own and your partner's cultural-ethnic and religious iden- tity. Second, make time to listen to your children's identity stories and experiences; their ambivalence is oftentimes part of a normal, developmental process. Learn not to judge or be hurt by their truthful revela- tions. Third, try to provide your children with plenty of cultural enrichment opportunities that celebrate the diversity of both of your cultures; offer them positive experiences to appreciate and synthesize the differ- ences (Crohn, 1995; Ting-Toomey, 2009). Fourth, be truthful in dealing with prejudice and racism issues; nurture a secure sense of personal self- esteem and self-worth in your children regardless of how they wish to identify themselves. Parents should model constructive, assertive behaviors in confront- ing prejudice and racism issues. Finally, recognize that your children will grow up and choose their own path; keep the dialog open and let your young children or teenagers know that you will always be there for them. A secure home environment, listening to their stories with patience and interest, giving them room or space to grow, and finding meaningful ways to relate to who they are and are becoming are some very basic means that parents can use to signal their heartfelt caring and mindful presence in their chil- dren's lives.