It is interesting (and important) to note that the Mexican and Indonesia employees are not asked to participate in the intercultural sensitivity program. Only the American workers have to attend (which has produced some resentment). Furthermore, the “immigrant” workers are primarily working in the marketing and new product development divisions of the company. Kurt rarely interacts with any of these folks. He only sees them entering the main administrative building down the block from his own facility.
We might ask Kurt how the intercultural sensitivity training is going. He will first hesitate and then declare (with some anger) that it is a waste of time and “frankly an affront to me and the other folks working here!” Kurt believes that he has “always” been (or at least “recently” became) “sensitive” to cultural issues. Kurt and his wife have often traveled to other countries during their annual vacation. While he has never been to Mexico or Indonesia, Kurt believes that he doesn’t need semi-annual “tune up.” He is not an automobile nor is he an “ugly” bigoted American. Apparently, the sensitivity session isn’t very sensitive to the self-perceptions of those attending the training nor was the design of this program and restriction in invitations sent out sensitive to the politics of Kurt’s organization.
How might a review of the New Johari Window assist us in the redesign of this sensitivity program? First, there is no evidence that any assessment was done regarding the current level of inter-cultural competence among those already working in Kurt’s company. Without this assessment, judgements that are made about competency can lead to offensive decisions and to reduction in trust between those preparing and providing the training and those attending these required sessions.
We find yet another example of self-fulfilling prophecies. If attendees are forced to attend a session that does not acknowledge (let along honor) their current level of sensitivity, then trust drops off—and sure enough no one is acting in a very “sensitive” manner. There is even growing resentment directed toward those “immigrants” who don’t have to attend: “what makes them better than us!”
There is even the matter of trust in intentions. Is this program actually being offered as a way to improve intercultural exchange between the American, Mexican and Indonesian employees, or is it nothing more than “window dressing” for a merger that undoubtedly will be stressful for all involved? And why is Kurt and most other employees in his company isolated from the new “immigrant” employees: “Are we not good enough for them?” “Do the leaders of our organization think we will botch up any interaction with folks from other countries?”
A perfect storm is produced that leads only to diminished trust and an emerging “insensitivity” to the unique perspectives offered by an increasingly diversified workforce in Kurt’s company. Sadly, the opportunity for increased diversity to yield creativity and improved problem-solving has slipped out of the hands of those leading Kurt’s company. Joe Luft could have provided some important insights to these leaders with regard to awareness, sensitivity and trust.
