Interkulturelle Kompetenz

Interkulturelle Kompetenz

Was versteht man unter interkultureller Kompetenz?

Es gibt zahllose Definitionen und Umschreibungen.

Erstens:

Die Summe aller Fähigkeiten, die notwendig sind, um mit Angehörigen anderer Kulturkreise einen Zustand der Gemeinsamkeit herzustellen, der nicht von bestimmten kulturspezifischen Eigenheiten und Vorstellungen dominiert wird.

Zweitens
Interkulturelle Kompetenz ist die Voraussetzung für eine erfolgreiche und für alle Beteiligten zufrieden stellende Kommunikation, Begegnung und Kooperation zwischen Menschen aus Fremdkulturen.

Welche sind die Komponenten interkultureller Kompetenz?

1. Wissen

Wissen  ist  essentielle  Vorbedingung  für  das  eigene  “richtige”  Verhalten  in  bezug  auf  die  Achtung  von  Kommunikationsnormen  und  die  Bewältigung  von  Konfliktsituationen.

Wissen  ist  Dreh-  und  Angelpunkt  für  das  Gelingen  interkultureller  Kompetenz

2. Erfahrung

Erfahrungen  nehmen eine  Interimstellung  zwischen  Persönlichkeit  und  Wissen  ein,  indem  sie  die  Persönlichkeit  prägen  und  zur  Wissensaufnahme  beitragen.

3. Person

Eine interkulturell kompetente Person soll unter anderem folgende wichtige Fähigkeiten aufweisen:

- Kontaktstärke

- Einfühlungsvermögen

- Humor:

4. Sachkompetenz

Diese Fähigkeit bildet die Grundlage interkultureller Kompetenz und beinhaltet folgendes:

Erstens das  Wissen  eigener  kultureller  Werte  und  Einstellungen;

Zweitens das  Wissen  fremder  kultureller  Werte  und  Einstellungen;

Drittens das  Wissen  um  die  mögliche  Rivalität  von  Werten  wie  etwa  Gerechtigkeit  oder  Solidarität.

5. Sozialkompetenz

Sozialkompetenz ist besonders in Interaktionssequenzen gefragt. Sozialkompetenz umfasst:

Erstens: die  Fähigkeit,  mit  Streß  umzugehen.

Zweitens: die  Fähigkeit,  Widersprüche  und  Konflikte  in  Interaktion  und  Kommunikation  kulturadäquat  auszutragen.

Drittens: die  Fähigkeit,  Empathie  für  das  fremdkulturelle  Individuum  zu  entwickeln.

6. Selbstkompetenz

Selbstkompetenz ist die  Erkenntnis,  wie  das “ich”  selbst  von  kulturellen  Werten  und  Einstellungen  beeinflußt  wird und  die  Erkenntnis,  welche  Muster  seiner  Kultur  oder  welche  Subkulturen  seiner  Kultur  sein  Selbstverständnis  ausmachen.

7. Wahrnehmungssensitivität

Darunter versteht man die Fähigkeit, in Situationen möglichst viele wichtige Wirkfaktoren zu identifizieren und eine große Sensibilität für psychologische Einflußgrößen und Wirkungen an den Tag zu legen.

Hierzu benötigt man die Fähigkeit zur Perspektivübernahme, Offenheit und die Diversität von Wahrnehmungsebenen, das heißt ein breites Wahrnehmungsvermögen.

8. Orientierungswissen

Hierzu rechnet man die Fähigkeit zur Orientierung in unklaren und problematischen Situationen, die Diversität von Erklärungsebenen. Mit anderen Worten: Vielfalt von Erklärungsansätzen und die Struktur der Erklärungen, das heißt die Größe des Bezugs der Erklärung zu einer konkreten Situation.

9. Lernmotivation und Lernfähigkeit

Lernmotivation heißt in diesem Zusammenhang die Fähigkeit einer Person, zu erkennen, wie wichtig interkulturelles Lernen ist und die Fähigkeit, anschließend angemessene Lernressourcen zu erschließen.

10. Handlungswissen

Eine interkulturell kompetente Person verfügt nicht nur über ein Verständnis des fremdkulturellen Orientierungssystems, das heißt Verständnis über die jeweiligen Kulturstandards, und dessen Auswirkungen auf das Verhalten eines zu einer Fremdkultur gehörigen  Interaktionspartners, sondern auch über die Fähigkeit dieses Wissen in konkrete Handlungen umzusetzen.

Zusammenfassung

Interkulturelle Kompetenz zeigt sich in der Fähigkeit, in adäquater Weise unterschiedliche Kulturstandards, das heißt Werte, Normen, Regeln und Einstellungen von Menschen aus Fremdkulturen zu berücksichtigen und dadurch synergieträchtige Formen der Zusammenarbeit zu realisieren zur Gestaltung von Gemeinsamem.

Prof. C.J.M. Beniers

NL Zoetermeer, 05-04-2009

© Copyright 2009

Über Professor C.J.M. Beniers

Prof. C.J.M. Beniers ist ein bekannter Fachmann auf dem Gebiet von modernen und internationalen Kommunikationstechniken und Entwickler vom Sechs-Komponenten-Modell. Damit können Firmen, Institutionen und Politiker mit Gesprächspartnern aus aller Welt erfolgreich kommunizieren und verhandeln. Seine Karriere begann als internationaler Manager bei Philips N.V. Später promovierte er als Professor und hat mittlerweile mehr als 35 Jahre Erfahrung als Manager und Management Trainer. Dadurch kennt er beide Seiten, die Theorie und die Praxis, sehr genau. Als Kommunikationsexperte veranstaltet er wissenschaftliche Forschungen im interkulturellen Bereich. Die interessanten Ergebnisse  dieser Forschungen sind in seinen E-Büchern nachzulesen, wie z.B. “Bridging The Cultural Gap”. Hier lernen moderne Manager sich erfolgreich auf Geschäfte mit Leuten aus Fremdkulturen vorzubereiten. Unter anderem werden aktuelle Themen wie Verhandlungen in Krisenzeiten, interkulturelle Barrieren, landesspezifische Kommunikationstechniken, persönliche kulturbedingte Wertesysteme und Missverständnisse behandelt und plausibel erklärt.

Kontakt:
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers

Amaliaplaats 2
2713 BJ Zoetermeer
The Netherlands

Telefon: +31 (0) 79 - 3 19 03 81
Mobile: +31 (0) 6 20618494

Email: beniers@beniers-consultancy.com
Webseite: www.beniers-consultancy.com

Conversational Analysis (4)

Conversation Analysis (4)*

4. ‘Banal’ Explanations

Conversation works in two ways. First, we are influenced by what others say (as with memory and others controlling our minds). But, second, their talk can provide us with a set of resources for interpreting and influencing what they will say and do (reading others’minds).

Take the case of observing that somebody is looking glum. How do you read their minds in order to find the source of their gloom?

Sacks* suggests a common response to such an observation: ‘If you’re sitting with somebody and they look glum, then one of the things you routinely do is try to figure out what it is about here and now that they might be glum about’.

Wherever possible, then, we will seek what Sacks calls ‘a local explanation’ for anything untoward that happens. Moreover, this search for the ‘here and now’ extends from such trivial events as a gloomy expression to large-scale happenings. For instance, the intial reports of bystanders in Dallas at the time of the assassination of President Kennedy were not of shots but of hearing a car backfiring.

Why do people work at producing banal explanations as their first thoughts? When interpreting a gloomy expression we probably look fors ome local cause because in the presence of the gloomy person we have a lot of clues to hand. But what about events like assassinations or, say, UFO sightings?

It seems that, although mental patients may be correct about some of their interpretations, few of us want to appear as crazy or even stupid people. Thus in any explanation we give we have an incentive to show that we have first sought the obvious, mundane reason for an out of the way event**.

It is also probably the case that such large-scale happenings take on a special meaning when we can relate them to something local or personal. For instance, many older people will still talk about the Kennedy assassination in relation to what they were doing on that day in 1963. In this regard, Sacks asks us why people resond more to tragedies when they involve local people? For instance, for the American people during the Vietnam War, the deaths of local soldiers ‘brought home the war’. As Sacks suggests:

It turns out that a major way that a war comes to hurt the government doing the war, is by it happening that people from small places die…It’s about the only way that they can come to seriously feel about it. For one, if everybody knows the parents of the person who died, then everybody has occasion to be told about it, and in talkin gabout it come to talk about the war.

Sacks is showing us that, when we tell a story (unless we are bore), we try to find an audience to whom the story will be relevant. Indeed, without such an audience, we may not even remember the story.

Storytellers also prefer to display some kind of ‘first hand’ involvement in the events they describe. Indeed, people are only entitled to have experiences in regard to events that they have observed and/or which affect them directly. For instance, in telephone calls, events like earthquakes are usually introduced in terms of how you survived it, and they become newsworthy less in terms of when they happened but more in relation to when we last talked – our ‘conversational time’.

In this way, Sacks notes, we seek to turn events into experiences or ‘something for us’. However, this shows that telling someone our experiences is not just emptying out the contents of our head but organizing a tale told to a proper recipient by an authorized teller. In this sense, experiences are ‘carefully regulated sort of things’.

Introducing the notion of ‘regulation’ into something so apparently personal as ‘experience’ is just one surprise that Sacks has in store for us. Moreover, for Sacks, in everyday life, we cannot even count on an objective realm of ‘facts’ to balance apparently subjective ‘experience’

Scientists usually assume that first they observe facts and then seek to explain them. But, in everyday life, we determine what is a ‘fact’ by first seeing if there is some comvincing explanation around. For instance, coroners may not deliver a verdict of suicide unless there is some evidence that the deceased person had a reason to take their own life. In that sense, in everyday life, only those ‘facts’ occur for which there is an explanation***.

* Silberman, David. Harvey Sacks Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0-19-521472-2

**Beniers, C.J.M. Bridging the Cultural Gap. http://www.slideshare.net/beniers/bridging-the-cultural-gap-1136131

*** Beniers, C.J.M. Barriers To Communication. http://web.me.com/beniers/Film/Barriers_To_Communication/Barriers_To_Communication.html

Prof. C.J.M. Beniers

NL Zoetermeer

029-08-2010

© Copyright 2010

About Professor C.J.M. Beniers
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers is a well known authority in the field of modern and international communication techniques. He developed the Six-Component-Model. This model enables companies, institutions and politicians to communicate and negotiate with counterparts from all over the world successfully. His career began as international manager at Philips and later he earned his doctorate as professor in communication. He has more than 35 years experience as manager and management trainer. Thus he knows both sides - theory and praxis - very well. As scientist, Prof. Beniers conducts frequently research in the field of intercultural communication. The results of his interesting research can be found in news articles, free pod casts, audio books and his E-books such as “Bridging The Cultural Gap.” Here, modern managers learn how to prepare for business meetings with people from different cultures; they acquire the techniques and tools to handle situations in times of crises successfully, master intercultural barriers, country-specific communication patterns, looking into personal cultural values & systems. Knowing all this, men can prevent cultural misunderstandings and misinterpretations – not only in business but also in private life.

Contact:
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers
Amaliaplaats 2
2713 BJ Zoetermeer
The Netherlands

Telefone: +31 (0) 79 - 3 19  03 81

Mobile:  +31 (0) 6 2 061 8494

Email: info@beniers-consultancy.com

Conversational Analysis (3)

Conversation Analysis (3)*

2. Conversational ‘Space’

As with the return of greetings, responses to reciting proverbs show that when we speak we do far more complicated things than simply confirming assertions and/or emptying out the contents of our minds. Instead, it seems that what we say will be heard in terms of its position in this particular conversational ‘space’ – after a previous turn and in the light of a possible next turn.

Take the mundane activity of ordering from a restaurant menu. Sacks* asks why we so often have conversations that go like this:

A: I’m going to have X

B: Well I just had that so I’ll have Y

or:

A: I’m going to have X

B: I don’t like that.

In such cases ‘you deal with their choice as if they were proposing it for you’. Why? The answer lies in the fact that, although A is addressing a waiter, you hear A as saying something of possible relevance to you. After all, it is likely to be your turn next.

So choices by two or more people from a restaurant menu, like greeting exchanges or proverb assertions, are cooperatively accomplished. This is seen even more clearly when you are being treated to a meal and your host says:

H: Why don’t you have the roast beef it’s great here?

Of course, this does not mean that you have to choose the beef – after all, you may be a vegetarian or worried about ‘mad cow’ disease. How then do you show that you attend to your host’s invitation? Simply, you can treat it as setting the price limit of any dish you do choose.

3. Talk and Morality

Such close attention to a previous turn at talk implies that we tend to be very much aware of the moral implications of utterances. Indeed, attention to moral implications is seen even in the case of natural events. Take the example of an earthquake – a fairly regular occurence in the part of California where Sacks lived. When the room shakes, why do you apologize to your house guests? Or, to return to the restaurant example, perhaps you have just had an excellent meal. Why do you not congratulate the chef but congratulate your host instead?

Sacks argues that these two examples involve events that have occured while one person has an obligation to another. Events, natural or otherwise, are not just the silent backdrop to what we say but are used to inform us about what it is appropriate for us to do next, such as apologizing to our guests or congratulating our host.

Even silence can be an event holding moral implications. In everyday talk, one party’s silence can show that they have recognized that another speaker has yet to finish an utterance or, in a multi-party conversation, has not selected them as a next speaker. Conversely, inappropriate silences (say after the punchline of a joke) can reveal that one was not properly listening.

*Silberman, David. Harvey Sacks Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0-19-521472-2

Prof. C.J.M. Beniers

NL Zoetermeer

025-07-2010

© Copyright 2010

About Professor C.J.M. Beniers
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers is a well known authority in the field of modern and international communication techniques. He developed the Six-Component-Model. This model enables companies, institutions and politicians to communicate and negotiate with counterparts from all over the world successfully. His career began as international manager at Philips and later he earned his doctorate as professor in communication. He has more than 35 years experience as manager and management trainer. Thus he knows both sides - theory and praxis - very well. As scientist, Prof. Beniers conducts frequently research in the field of intercultural communication. The results of his interesting research can be found in news articles, free pod casts, audio books and his E-books such as “Bridging The Cultural Gap.” Here, modern managers learn how to prepare for business meetings with people from different cultures; they acquire the techniques and tools to handle situations in times of crises successfully, master intercultural barriers, country-specific communication patterns, looking into personal cultural values & systems. Knowing all this, men can prevent cultural misunderstandings and misinterpretations – not only in business but also in private life.

Contact:
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers
Amaliaplaats 2
2713 BJ Zoetermeer
The Netherlands

Telefone: +31 (0) 79 - 3 19  03 81

Mobile:  +31 (0) 6 2 061 8494

Email: info@beniers-consultancy.com

Conversational Analysis (2)

Conversation Analysis (2)*

1.  Socializing (2)

Telling news is responsive to a recurrent rule of conversation**: don’t tell others what they already know. How is the rule managed in multi-party conversations***when one’s partner is present – who may be assumed to know a lot that you know? Sacks suggests two solutions. First, in such situations one could elect only to tell new things. But, as Sacks points out, this solution ‘has massive troubles involved in it which are reflected in…having their spouse complain “How come you never told me that”. Given this ‘trouble’, a preferred solution often chosen is for spouse actively to adopt the role of a hearer of ‘old’ news. They can do this by monitoring a partner’s talk for whether it is correctly presented and putting in corrections (often in overlapping posisions). However, this solution can also be a subsequent cause for complaint (the teller may say: ‘why did you tell the story so badly?’

Sack’s discussion of conversational news reporting shows that news is presented and heard as constructed for a particular audience. One implication of this is, as recipients of news, we have to provide ‘appropriate’ responses. Along these lines, Sacks*** reports a telephone call where the called party has just reported a stay in hospital for an operation. This report is received by ‘Oh…’ by the caller. After further details, the call concludes as follows:

Emma: but I’m better I wz, lying on the couch out’n front

Bernice: Oh…I’m sorry Emma?

Out of this apparently mundane conversation, Sacks generates a puzzle. Why don’t we hear ‘I’m sorry as ‘I’m sorry that you’re better’? It turns out that the first expectation on hearing such announcements is that the recipient will mark it as ‘newsworthy’ (as by the first drawn-out ‘Oh’). For, if we don’t at least do that (and do it first), the announcer can hear that we are not treating their announcement as particularly remarkable and hence challenging their credibility as proper newstellers. For instance, think of the impact of saying nothing after an announcement of good or bad news or even just saying ‘mm’, ‘I see’ or, still worse, ‘so?’

Sacks argues that only after we have fulfilled our role as a news recipient can we properly engage in other activities such as the expression of sympathy. So this caller’s ‘I’m sorry’ in this late position is not heard as meaning ‘I’m sorry that you are better’ but as a properly delayed expression of sympathy.

2. ‘Everyone Has to Lie’

If we look back at these examples, we can see how Sacks’s analysis is powerfully counter-intuitive. Ordinarily, if we think about it at all, we assume that what we say reflects our state of mind. However, what Sacks is showing us is that, in practice, we construct our talk by reference to how it will be heard. By saying what we do, positioned in a particular place, we thus make available to our hearer(s) a particular reading of what we mean.

The implication is that speaking and hearing are activities rather than the passive transmisson of thought processes. Moreover, these activities happen so quickly that it is implausible to think that they are usually done strategically or even with prior thought. Take the example of someone answering the question ‘How are you?’ by ‘Fine’ even if they acually feel lousy. Why do we dissemble? If you think about it, if we truthfully answer ‘lousy’, the appropriate next utterance from the hearer is the question ‘why?’. So by being truthful, we demand that the questioner should begin what Sacks calls a ‘diagnostic procedure’. Now this is hardly appropriate or polite in the many cases where ‘How are you?’ is to be heard as part of a greeting ceremony rather than as a ‘real’ question. Indeed, this may be the point of more formal greetings such as ‘How do you do?’ which properly elicit the same utterance from the other person.

As Sacks points out, a good guide to this matter are books of etiquette. From these it becomes clear that the person who answers ‘truthfully’ to a ceremonial question has all the makings of a bore. By contrast, by sometimes ‘lying’ when asked such a question, we show proper concern for what we and others should properly do.

Herein lies a paradox related to two opposing demands of proper behaviour. On the one hand, we are never supposed to lie. On the other, we would place other people in an unwelcome position if we failed to show concern with ‘the different consequences of (our) alternative answers’. It thus turns out, in the title of one of Sack’s published papers (1975), that ‘everyone has to lie’. Given the case of ‘honest’ bores, this is not something to be sad about but something for which to be grateful.

Now, of course, the maxim ‘everyone has to lie’ will be heard as only appropriate to certain occasions. For instance, it is unlikely to help you if you are found to lie when giving evidence in a court of law. Moreover, ‘everyone’ sometimes only refers to a relatively small group (that is, people we know, or everyone who is ‘anyone’).

By contrast, we sometimes restrict assertions to certain classes of people: lawyers, males, women. But do members of such classes whose qualities don’t fit our assertion disprove whartwe have said? For instance, can you disprove the assertion that ‘lawyers are all greedy’, by citing a case of one lawyer who often works for nothing? No, says Sacks. The failure of this person to conform to the assertion may simply reflect on ‘his status as a proper member of that class’ so the counter-example is represented as not ‘really’ a lawyer. In this way, formal and everyday logic part company.

Part of the reason for this is that, in everyday logic, generalizations don’t altogether work as statistical claims. For instance, if you are challenged about your actions, one effective response may be to say ‘everyone does don’t they?’. Here the appeal to ‘everyone’ works as a rhetorical device rather than a statistical claim. As such, it serves to limit your accountability for your act because such behaviour can be seen as ‘general’.

Similarly, invoking a proverb (say ‘better late than never’) is a powerful conversational move for reasons quite unconnected with whether the proverb is ‘true’ or even ‘true in this instance’. Sacks notes that using a proverb as a conversational opener typically produces a token of agreement from the hearer. In this respect, it may be yet another effective pick-up device.

By contrast, people who fail to agree with an invoked proverb will find that the conservation ia abruptly terminated by the proverb reciter. This may be because proverbs are usually treated as unchallengeable and therefore as something any conversationalist will know. Hence challenging a proverb is an effective means of resisting an intended pickup by means of a proverb statement.

* Silberman, David. Harvey Sacks Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0-19-521472-2

** Beniers, C.J.M. Bridging the Cultural Gap. http://www.slideshare.net/beniers/bridging-the-cultural-gap-1136131

*** Beniers, C.J.M. Intercultural Communication. http://slideshare.net/beniers/presentations

Prof. C.J.M. Beniers

NL Zoetermeer

06-07-2010

© Copyright 2010

About Professor C.J.M. Beniers
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers is a well known authority in the field of modern and international communication techniques. He developed the Six-Component-Model. This model enables companies, institutions and politicians to communicate and negotiate with counterparts from all over the world successfully. His career began as international manager at Philips and later he earned his doctorate as professor in communication. He has more than 35 years experience as manager and management trainer. Thus he knows both sides - theory and praxis - very well. As scientist, Prof. Beniers conducts frequently research in the field of intercultural communication. The results of his interesting research can be found in news articles, free pod casts, audio books and his E-books such as “Bridging The Cultural Gap.” Here, modern managers learn how to prepare for business meetings with people from different cultures; they acquire the techniques and tools to handle situations in times of crises successfully, master intercultural barriers, country-specific communication patterns, looking into personal cultural values & systems. Knowing all this, men can prevent cultural misunderstandings and misinterpretations – not only in business but also in private life.

Contact:
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers
Amaliaplaats 2
2713 BJ Zoetermeer
The Netherlands

Telefone: +31 (0) 79 - 3 19  03 81

Mobile:  +31 (0) 6 2 061 8494

Email: info@beniers-consultancy.com

Conversation Analysis (1)

Conversation Analysis (1)*

1. Socializing  (1)**

The ability of some people to be able to enter the conversations with attractive strangers is something that puzzles a lot of us. Indeed, books with titles like ‚How To Win Friends’ usually sell very well. What is the knack involved? Have you ever said ‚hello’ to a stranger and been rebuffed? The problem ist hat such a greeting implies that you already knew the person concerned and hence had ‚an initial right to use „Hello“. Hence a stranger need not to return your greeting. One solution to this problem is to begin with questions to a stranger such as: ‚Don’t I know you from somewhere?’ ‚Didn’t I see you at such-and-such a place?’ ‚Aren’t you so-and-so?’ The advantage of the question form is that it is properly receipted by an answer. So not to answer a question, even if you suspect the motives of the questioner, is a difficult act to bring off. Moreover, having got that answer, the questioner properly may ask another question. In that way, conversations get started.

All this means that questions can be an effective ‚pick-up’ device. Indeed, in an exercise where a class was asked to provide examples of utterances which might start conversations with members of the opposite sex, around 90 per cent were questions. Among such questions, routine requests are a particularly powerful device. In addition to the obligation to provide an answer to a question, there is the expectation that we should not be needlessly rude to a stranger making a request for something as mundane as, say, the time. Moreover, the requester knows that she or he will get a standard, quick response and thus will soon be in a position to ask a further question which may start a longer conversation, for example:

A: When does the plane aarive?

B: 7:15.

A: Are you going to San Francisco also?

So questions can be good pick-up devices when you happen to find yourself in physical proximity to a stranger***. However, things get more complicated when the person you are interested in is part of larger crowd involved with you in a multi-party conversation. In this situation, Sacks asks, how do people get involved in a two-party conversation?

One possibility is to ask if anyone wants a drink and then to return with the drink to sit next to the particular target of your attention. In this way, the right ‚territorial’ situation can be created. Alternatively, one can try waiting until everybody other than the targeted party has left, or, more reliably, if there is music, offer an invitation to dance. Indeed, the institution of the dance can be seen as a nice solution to the problem of transforming multi-party into two-party conversation (although the noise of modern discos may limit this possibility).

These various devices underline Sacks’s point that the achievement of a two-party conversation is a skillful, collaborative accomplishment. But such collaboration is not limited to talk between strangers. Take the case of friends telling and receiving news from each other. It is sometimes noted that we have less news to give to someone we haven’t spoken to for, say, six months, than to someone to whom we speak nearly every day. As Sacks says:

Now how in the world would it be that you could have something to talk about every day with somebody, and not have something to talk about when you talk to them every six months? Why is it that you don’t have six months of news? You could figure that the less you talk with somebody, say a friend who lives in another city, the more you’d have to talk about.

The answer to this puzzle ist hat, as every reporter knows, what counts as news depends on ist immediacy. An item that may happily be reported to a friend the day after it happened, no longer appears to be newsworthy after six months. If something is not mentioned soon after it happened, then it can ‚amount to nothing’. So the items of news that you can tell after six months are only things that are worthy of attention over such a long period. And, ‚if you don’t have them, you have nothing to talk about’. To be able to manage a conversation after a long break as though it were a daily event is a special skill which is worthy of remark.

*Silberman, David. Harvey Sacks Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0-19-521472-2

** Beniers, C.J.M. Bridging the Cultural Gap. http://www.slideshare.net/beniers/bridging-the-cultural-gap-1136131

***Beniers, C.J.M. Intercultural Communication. http://slideshare.net/beniers/presentations

Prof. C.J.M. Beniers

NL Zoetermeer

15-06-2010

© Copyright 2010

About Professor C.J.M. Beniers
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers is a well known authority in the field of modern and international communication techniques. He developed the Six-Component-Model. This model enables companies, institutions and politicians to communicate and negotiate with counterparts from all over the world successfully. His career began as international manager at Philips and later he earned his doctorate as professor in communication. He has more than 35 years experience as manager and management trainer. Thus he knows both sides - theory and praxis - very well. As scientist, Prof. Beniers conducts frequently research in the field of intercultural communication. The results of his interesting research can be found in news articles, free pod casts, audio books and his E-books such as “Bridging The Cultural Gap.” Here, modern managers learn how to prepare for business meetings with people from different cultures; they acquire the techniques and tools to handle situations in times of crises successfully, master intercultural barriers, country-specific communication patterns, looking into personal cultural values & systems. Knowing all this, men can prevent cultural misunderstandings and misinterpretations – not only in business but also in private life.

Contact:
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers
Amaliaplaats 2
2713 BJ Zoetermeer
The Netherlands

Telefone: +31 (0) 79 - 3 19  03 81

Mobile:  +31 (0) 6 2 061 8494

Email: info@beniers-consultancy.com

Diversity (3)

Diversity-3*

1. Fundaments of Embracing Diversity

One of the most important things a leader can do, no matter the style or role, is to embrace diversity. Many people resist diversity because they resist change. Yet the diversity of the workplace is a trend that cannot be reversed, and it is creating change. Leaders need to do more than accept the change, more than accept the existence of diversity. To make diversity work, they need to be among the first to embrace it.

By modeling good diversity skills, by demonstrating their respect and appreciation for the differences among us, leaders can help others accept and value diversity. The fundamentals of embracing diversity include:

· Respect for others, for differences, for ourselves.

· Tolerance for ambiguities in language, styles, behavior.

· Flexibility in situations that are new, difficult, or challenging.

· Self-Awareness to be sure you understand your reactions and know what you bring to the diverse workplace.

· Empathy to feel what someone who is different from you might be feeling in new or strange surroundings.

· Patience for change that can be slow, and diversity situations that might be difficult.

· Humor because when we lose our sense of humor, we lose our sense of humanity, as well as our perspectives.

3M is an organization dedicated to valuing the diversity of its workforce. Richard Lidstad, Vice President of Human Resources, says that respect is the key to embracing diversity. He tells a story of coming to 3M many years ago, during an era when male executives always wore sport shirts and Hush Puppies, and had a scraggly beard. The man turned out to be one of the company’s top inventors, holder of 13 patents. People had so much respect for him, for what he had accomplished, that they learned to ignore how he dressed. Lidstad uses that story to stress the importance of doing more than tolerating differences. To be a successful leader, he says, you need to embrace differences in people, their cultures, their ways of behaving in the world.

2. Communication**

Leadership requires excellent communication skills. Working in and leading a diverse workforce requires excellent communication. Communication skills are any executive’s, any manager’s, any leader’s most important skills. Understanding the meaning of communication is the first step to gaining those skills.

3. Defining Communication

Communication is the process of creating shared meanings. Yet the word, and that definition, mean much more. By exploring what “community” ( a word with the same root) means, we can come to an understanding of what we mean by “creating shared meaning.”

4. Community

Community can be broken into two primary meanings, one geographic and the other social. A geographic community is defined by physical borders that encompass areas where people live and work. A neighbourhood, a town, even a state or a country is a community, on progressively larger scales. All geographic communities consist of physical areas where people have certain responsibilities they must share, including maintaining the environment, protecting the communicty from outside forces, and assuring that the people within its boundaries ara as satisfied as possible. The community members must work together, come to agreement on many issues, all for the best of everyone. They share the concerns and goals, and often the values, of their communities.

A social community is a community with social rather than geographical boundaries. The gay community, the African American community, the nonprofit community, the Buddhist community, are all social communities. These communites, like geographic ones, have many interests in common. As a result, members of these communities share many responsibilities in the maintenance of their communities. Like geographical communities, they share concerns, goals, and values.

5. The Nature of Commmunication

Other words with the same root also contribute to understanding what communication means. When we “communicate with nature”, we become one with it. Communion in many churches means becoming one with God. To become one with, to share – that is the true nature of communication. Communication is that process by which we become one with others, not completely or totally, but insofar as specific meanings and specific understandings are concerned. We share a part of ourselves, our message, our meaning of words and behavior, with another.

We all have different frameworks. We all come from different backgrounds, different experiences. What means something to one person means something different to another, so we need to work together, to dance with each other, to create a meaning we can share. By going through the process of creating a shared meaning, we understand each other, we communicate.

6. Communicating Yourself***

Sharing a part of yourself also focuses on another important element of communication: what we communicate. No matter what else we may want to communicate, or what meanings we want to create and share, we always communicate ourselves. The basic principles of communication include two truisms: as human beings, everything we do communicates something to those who hear or see us; and the primary thing we communicate is ourselves. In other words, we cannot not communicate ourselves.

A leader needs to understand that, by embracing diversity, we communicate ourselves as people who value and respect differences. By being leaders, we communicate ourselves as leaders.

7. Language and Communication

Creating shared meaning is not easy to accomplish. Humans communicate in an ambiguous way; we use words. Words by their very nature have multiple meanings. They are open to interpretation and context. In fact, one of the reasons we need to create shared meaning is because of the multiple meanings of our words.

We use words to create our reality. Words shape everything we understand, and create things we don’t see. When we look at creating our visions and organizational culture, the importance of language as reality will become more apparent. A leader who uses language so well that she can create reality, or her vision of reality, is a powerful leader indeed.

8. Diversity Tips

· Diversity is a fact of contemporary organizational life and will become increasingly so in the future.

· When positively and properly supported, workplace diversity can produce tangible benefits.

· Leadership is key to gaining diversity’s benefits, and can come from any level in an organization.

· Leadership also needs to come from the top.

· Communication and awareness are key.

Diversity-2

Diversity-2*

1. Diversity’s Challenges

Diversity’s benefits are not automatic. Diversity also means challenge. Racism, sexism, and homophobia disrupt the workplace, prevent teams from accomplishing their goals, and keep organizations from achieving their missions. Simple misunderstanding caused by cultural and other differences in behavior, work attitudes, and communication styles also create challenges in the workplace.

Leaders need to be aware of the challenges of diversity in order to rise above them and reap diversity’s benefits. One of the biggest challenges of diversity is how it affects the management of organizations. Some of the specific organizational challenges that diversity creates are:

· Management complexity: It seems easier to manage a group of similar-minded people. A homogeneous organization has less conflict. There is no need to constantly adjust managerial style, to listen in different ways to each individual, or to find new approaches to doing tasks that have always been done successfully one way.

· Fairness: How can we be fair when different cultures define fairness in different ways? Diversity also creates questions about fairness because of the need to create mechanisms to assure equal acccess to the workplace, protect different groups against discrimination, and treat every individual equitably.

· Individual differences versus unanimity: Most of us think it is easier to work with people with backgrounds similar to our own than it is to learn to work with people with different styles, to understand new perspectives, and to adjust to disparate attitudes.

· Identity and loyalty: When we are all similar (all members of a homogeneous group), we know who we are (or at least like to think we do). We do not constantly need to redefine ourselves. We do not need to wonder if we can trust new people with new values, if they will back us up, or if they will be loyal to our organization as we have known it.

Turning many of these challenges into benefits is possible. Finding new approaches to doing tasks, for instance, leads to innovation. Clear-thinking leaders with sound diversity skills can find the ways to make diversity work. Perhaps the most important diversity skills are leadership skills. There are many definitions of leadership, and many leadership styles. Terry Pearce, author of Loading Out Loud, defines a leader as a person who has a vision and the ability to communicate it in a compelling way. Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu believed “true leaders inspire people to do great things, and, when the work is done, their people proudly say: “We did this ourselves.”

2. Leadership Styles

One view breaks leadership down to four different styles:

· A visionary leader sees a future, sets goals, and communicates a shared vision.

· A motivational leader communicates in a way that inspires others to act.

· An archetypal leader models ways of doing things, or acts in a way he or she wishes others to act.

· A facilitator assures that everyone is heard and that everyone shares in the responsibilties and outcomes of organizational missions.

Organizational theorist Peter Senge** sees a leader as someone who understanda the different needs of an organization, and plays a variety of roles: The leader as designer designs her organization by establishing the organization’s core values and purpose, and by communicating its vision. She creates policies, strategies, and systems based on those concepts. The leader as teacher tells stories that describe the truth about the organization, and fills others with a sense of purpose. She is a coach, a guide, a facilitator, and helps others in the organization generate ideas for the future rather than merely react or respond to outside stimuli. The leader as steward is the steward of the organization’s vision. She tests ideas, listens to others, and changes her personal vision as she talks with others. Her personal vision is not as important as the vision of the organization. She unifies all people, and creates a shared vision. To become an effective leader, an executive needs to understand her own talents and style and combine any and all of the styles above to find her own way of leading.

3. What Leadership Does

What distinguishes a leader, according to Warren Bennis***, is that while managers do things right, leaders do the right thing. Organizations often put too much emphasis on management, on the position of the employee, rather than on how best to lead. Bennis claims that…”American organizations…are underled and overmanaged.”

Diversity greatly needs strong leaders in positions of power. It also needs everyone in every organization who sees the need for better working relationships, who sees the problems and can communicate solutions, to step forward and take on a leadership role. People need to understand diversity, take stands where needed, and inspire others. In other words, more people need to do the right thing.

Effective leaders help the diverse workforce in many ways. They help create awareness of both the issues of diversity and of the ways to communicate in a diverse workplace. To do this, they must be aware of the issues, be self-aware, and be open to different styles of communication.

A leader can also help increase understanding between all members of the organization. A leader can help people in the organization realize their prejudices ans stereotypes, and stop those biases from affecting the workplace. A leader also manages conflict effectively.

By understanding diversity, a leader understands how to motivate each unique individual. A manager gets the most of her workforce, and a leader gets even more.

Film: Diversity

Film: Diversity’s Benefits in the Workplace

Click here: http://web.me.com/beniers/Film_Diversity-1/Film_Diversity-1.html

Prof. C.J.M. Beniers

NL Zoetermeer

11-05-2010

© Copyright 2010

About Professor C.J.M. Beniers
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers is a well known authority in the field of modern and international communication techniques. He developed the Six-Component-Model. This model enables companies, institutions and politicians to communicate and negotiate with counterparts from all over the world successfully. His career began as international manager at Philips and later he earned his doctorate as professor in communication. He has more than 35 years experience as manager and management trainer. Thus he knows both sides - theory and praxis - very well. As scientist, Prof. Beniers conducts frequently research in the field of intercultural communication. The results of his interesting research can be found in news articles, free pod casts, audio books and his E-books such as “Bridging The Cultural Gap.” Here, modern managers learn how to prepare for business meetings with people from different cultures; they acquire the techniques and tools to handle situations in times of crises successfully, master intercultural barriers, country-specific communication patterns, looking into personal cultural values & systems. Knowing all this, men can prevent cultural misunderstandings and misinterpretations – not only in business but also in private life.

Contact:
Prof. C.J.M. Beniers
Amaliaplaats 2
2713 BJ Zoetermeer
The Netherlands

Telefone: +31 (0) 79 - 3 19  03 81

Mobile:  +31 (0) 6 2 061 8494

Email: info@beniers-consultancy.com

Diversity-1

Diversity-1*

1. Workplace Diversity

The demographics of the workplace are changing and will continue to change rapidly. Almost every organization in te United States looks different – both in terms of who’s employed and the positions they hold – than it did ten years ago.

The Hudson Institute study, Workforce 2000, projects that between 1988 and 2000 only 15 percent of the people entering the workforce will be American-born white males. In 1987, this figure stood at 48 percent. In the year 2000, two-thirds of new workers will be women. The rate of people of color joining the workforce will be much greater than the rate of whites. Many of these new entrants will not speak English. The workforce will also be older.

Workforce diversity is not a matter for debate. It’s a fact. It presents one of the greatest challenges facing today’s organizations, and only through hard work and committed leadership can the potential for benefit be realized. Yet where will the leadership come from? How many leaders do we need? What skills must they have?

2. What is Diversity?

This text defines diversity as significant differences among people, though we will concentrate on race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, age, and physical abilities. Some definitions include differences in ethnicitiy, nation of origin, class, religion, learning and communication styles, where people come from, and occupation as aspects of diversity. All of these differences can affect the workplace.

Such definitions are broad. A group of white male engineers is a diverse group: we are all individuals with differences. By understanding diversity well enough, a manager can get the most out of any goup by appreciating and using their differences. Nevertheless, diversity has its best potential, and its biggest challenge, in deeper differences.

3. Diversity’s Benefits

The deep difference in today’s workforce can mean substantial benefits for today’s organizations. Diversity brings differences in styles and in ways of looking at and doing things which can help organizations do more than they ever dreamed possible. Diversity can help organizations create new and more innovative products and services, better meet the needs of customers and clients, and do more for the community the organizations are part of and serve. Diversity means differences, and differences create challenges, but differences also open avenues of opportunities.

Diversity:

· Enables a wide range of views to be present in an organization, including views that might challenge the status quo from all sides.

· Focuses and strengthen an organization’s core values.

· Is instrumental in organizational change.

· Stimulates social, economic, intellectual and emotional growth.

· Helps an organization understand its place in the global community.

Numerous studies document diversity’s benefits. The bipartisan Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, for instance, cites statistics demonstrating that companies wich successfully used their diverse workforce, and which did well on glass celing issues, saved millions of dollars on turnover costs and earned twise the rate of return on investment as those which did not use their diversity as well.

IBM, as one example, believes the diversity of its workforce means understanding and appealing to its customer base. As the company has downsized, it has assigned a special workforce diversity staff to assure that its workplace diversity remains intact. As IBM chief Louis V. Gerstner** says, “Our marketplace is made up of all races, religions, and sexual orientations, and therefore it is vital to our success that our workforce also be diverse.” The organization’s Director of Workplace Diversity adds, “We think it is important for our customers to look inside and see people like them. If they can’t, it seems to me the prospect of them becoming our staying customers declines.”

Überlegungen zur Kultur als Einflussgröße im Selbstkonzept (4)

Überlegungen zur Kultur als Einflussgröße im Selbstkonzept ((4)*

Kulturelle Werte können offenbar nur funktional bzw. adäquat, jedoch nicht „wahr“ an sich sein. Insofern als sie sich im Lebensvollzug „bewähren“, sind sie für das Individuum eine praktikable Entscheidungshilfe bei der Überbrückung von fehlenden Kenntnissen. Genau dies dürfte im interkulturellen Kontext zunächst der Normalfall sein, denn fremde Wertesysteme sind zwar wissenschaftlich rekonstruierbar, aber nicht wirklich erfahrbar. Ein prominentes Beispiel in der chinesischen Kultur dürfte das Konzept des „guanxi“ sein (Yeung & Tung, 1996). Die darin zum Ausdruck kommende Betonung eines weitverzweigten Beziehungsgeflechts erscheint nachvollziehbar. Die konkrete Bedeutung, was dies zum Beispiel in einer Organisation wirklich einschließt, ist nur vor Ort erlebbar.

Jetzt können die Überlegungen auf den Gegenstand der Betrachtung übertragen werden: Selbstkonzepte als Produkte der Verarbeitung selbstbezogener Erfahrungen sind im weitesten Sinne geistige Ergebnisse. Nur als Ergebnisse sind sie (partiell) über verbale Äußerungen zugänglich. Diese impliziten Theorien über die eigene Person entstehen im kommunikativen Kontakt und vermitteln Bedeutungen im doppelten Sinne:

· Zunächst weist das Selbstkonzept auf etwas zur eigenen Person (objektiv) Erkanntes hin.

· Zum zweiten ist damit dem nachgeordnet, jedoch einander bedingend, eine (subjektive) Einordnung des Erkannten, eine Bewertung hinsichtlich der individuellen Bedeutsamkeit verbunden.

An dieser Stelle wird die angeführte gegenseitige Zuordnung unterschiedlicher Begriffe deutlich: Über die Grundfähigkeit der Selbstreflexivität (Selbstreferenz) wird es dem Individuum möglich, qua Selbstanalyse sich selbst erkennend zu werten bzw. sich selbst wertend zu erkennen. Interiorisierte Werte sind so als über kommunikative Akte (das Subjekt wird zum Objekt der Betrachtung) entstandene, kognitiv-affektiv “verankerte” handlungsrelevante (emotionale, kognitive, normative) Selbstbewertungen. Diese Einstellungen zur eigenen Person bilden als Einstellungsstruktur die Grundlage der Selbststruktur und motivieren in autonomer Weise individuell sinnhafte Handlungen. Im kommunikativen Austausch mit sich selbst bilden überindividuell-gesellschaftliche Bewertungssysteme die Bezugspunkte für die Bewertung des Erkannten.

Auf diese Weise wirken kulturelle Faktoren (zum Beispiel Erziehungsregeln, medial vermiitelte Ideologien bis hin zu ästhetischen Präferenzen) als Eckdaten regulierend (orientierend und begrenzend) bei der Aneignung eines Wertesystems.

Mit Schmidt (1994) lässt sich aus kommunikationstheoretischer Sicht Kultur**  als “Ausführungsprogramm für Sozialität auf der kognitiven, kommunikativen und sozialstruktuellen Ebene” (S. 243) verstehen, durch welches Wirklichkeitsmodelle als soziale Sinnsysteme angeboten und über normierende Mechanismen (Normen als sanktionierte Wertvostellungen) dynamisch reproduziert, kommuniziert, rezipert und produziert werden. Das heißt jedoch nicht, die Autonomie und Eigenaktivität des Indiviuums mit seiner personalen Identität zu vernachlässigen. Damit sind diejenigen Wertvorstellungen einer Person gemeint, die nicht Teil des “Ausführungsprogramms” sind, sondern möglicherweise trotzdem entstanden oder gegen dieses gerichtet sind. Vielmehr ist damit das gesamte Verhältnis des Person-Umwelt-Bezuges angesprochen.

Überlegungen zur Kultur als Einflussgröße im Selbstkonzept (3)

Überlegungen zur Kultur als Einflussgröße im Selbstkonzept ((3)*

Es ist hier nicht das Ziel, das schier unüberschaubare Feld unterschiedlicher Verwendungen von “Kultur” (Maase 1990, S. 900) zu betrachten. Vielmehr soll aus der Vielfalt der Begriffsbestimmungen eine brauchbare Arbeitsdefinition gegeben werden, die den Hintergrund für die vorliegende empirische Untersuchung bildet und die Zusammenhänge zwischen Kultur, Wert und Selbtkonzept plausibel machen kann.

Mit Maurer (1990) ist Kultur das,”…was die Menschen aus sich und ihrer Welt machen und was sie dabei denken und sprechen” (S. 823). In einem im angloamerikanischen Sprachraum weit verbreiteten Lehrbuch der Sozialpsychologie wird ebenso eine handlungstheoretische Definition für den Kulturbegriff angeboten: “…cultures are ways of living. Cultures include both patterns of actual behavior and understanding of norms - ideas how people ought to behave. Cultures are typically associated with languages and political entities” (Sabini, 1995, S. 257f).Maase hält fest: “Bei allen Ansätzen geht es im Kern um zwei grundlegende Dimensionen von Kultur:

a. analytisch-funktional um die Systeme von gesellschaftlichen Vermittlungen, über die menschliche Tätigkeit ideell (symbolisch, rational, emotional, sinnlich-bildhaft, ideologisch etc.) reguliert

b. axiomatisch-inhaltlich um die (letztlich auf Interessen gegründeten) Werte, Ziele, Maßstäbe, die die Verhaltensorientierungen konlreter Kultursysteme strukturieren” (S. 900).

Eine solche philosophisch-sozialwissenschaftliche Definition fasst “Kultur als Lebensbedingung, geistig-soziales Agens und Produkt des historisch-gesellschaftlichen Menschen” (Erpenbeck 1996, S. 234) auf. Die angefühhrten kulturellen Regulationsformen (symbolisch, rational, emotional, sinnlich-bildhaft, ideologische etc.) und Strukturaspekte (Interessen, Werte, Ziele, Maßstäbe) haben wesentlich wertenden Charakter. Dazu stellt Erpenbeck (ibid.) fest: “Die vielleicht präziseste Quintessenz des Zusammenhangs von Kultur und Wert stammt von Max Weber: ‘Der Begriff der Kultur ist ein Wertbegriff (…) ,Kultur ist ein vom Standpunkt des Menschen aus mit Sinn und Bedeutung bedachter endlicher Ausschnitt aus der sinnlosen Unendlichkeit des Weltgeschehens’. Damit werden Wert und Wertung die eigentlichen Mittelpunktkategorien des Kulturbegriffs’**.

Bezogen auf die individuelle Ebene im interkulturellen Kontext bedeutet dies im Klartext: Ein Kulturschock ist nichts anderes als ein Werteschock. In der konkreten interpersonellen Kommunikationssituation treffen immer “individuelle Kulturen” aufeinander, d.h. die Beteiligten gehören einer bestimmten Subkultur an und haben (nur) einen bestimmten Teil des in ihrer Kultur vorherrschenden Wertesystems als “subjektive Kultur” (Triandis, 1972) tatsächlich internalisiert. Insofern sind die Beteiligten typisch und untypisch zugleich.

Das bisher Dargestellte lässt sich gut verbinden mit einer gängigen Definition des Wertbegriffs: “Im allgemeinen dient ‘Wert’ als Bezeichnung dafür, was aus verschiedenen Gründen aus der Wirklichkeit hervorgehoben wird und als wünschenswert und notwendig für den Auftritt, der die Wertung vornimmt, sei es ein Individuum, eine Gesellschaftsgruppe oder eine Institution, die die einzelnen Individuen oder Gruppen repräsentiert” (Baran, 1990, S. 805f).

Innerhalb der kognitiv-emotionalen Wissensgesamtheit wäre dann zwischen Werten und wert-determinierenden Resultaten, d.h. dem Wertwissen und dem aus Kenntniswissen, d.h. dem Sachwissen zu unterscheiden. Werte- und Sachwissen machen zusammen “gebündelt” das Handlungswissen, d.h. die Handlungskompetenz einer Person aus (Erpenbeck, 1994, S. 215).

Next Page »

• Neue Artikel

  • Conversational Analysis (4)
  • Conversational Analysis (3)
  • Conversational Analysis (2)
  • Conversation Analysis (1)
  • Diversity (3)
  • Diversity-2
  • Film: Diversity
  • Diversity-1
  • Überlegungen zur Kultur als Einflussgröße im Selbstkonzept (4)
  • Überlegungen zur Kultur als Einflussgröße im Selbstkonzept (3)
  • Überlegungen zur Kultur als Einflussgröße im Selbstkonzept (2)
  • Überlegungen zur Kultur als Einflussgröße im Selbstkonzept (1)
  • Kulturelle Unterschiede in der europäischen Fernsehwerbung (9)
  • Kulturelle Unterschiede in der europäischen Fernsehwerbung (8)
  • Kulturelle Unterschiede in der europäischen Fernsehwerbung (7)

• Tags

  Abwechslung Akzeptanz Creative Strategy Diskurs Diskursstruktur Diversity Erfahrung ethische Werte funktionale Normen Helden Humor ideelle Werte Information Cues interkulturelle Differenzen Interkulturelle Kompetenz Ironie Kreativität Kultur Kultur als kollektives Phänomen Kultur als Orientierungssystem Kulturmanifestationen Kulturstanards Kulturstandards materielle Werte moralische Normen Natur Normen Orientierungswissen Parodie persönliches Wertesystem Persönlichkeit Person Redundanz Rituale Sachkompetenz Selbstkompetenz Selbstkonzept sittliche Normen soziale Werte Sozialkompetenz Symbole Values Wahrnehmungssensibilität Werte Wissen

• Link to Podcasts

  • Kultur

• Social Networks

  • facebook
  • Linkedin
  • Slideshare
  • Xing

• My Tweets

• Cultural Differences in Television Advertising-Part 5: http://bit.ly/RJ0UW 05/18/09 02:27pm
• Cultural Differences in Television Advertising Part-4. Check: http://bit.ly/TNpYl 05/13/09 06:52am
• Cultural Differences in Television Advertising Part-3. Check: http://bit.ly/TNpYl 05/12/09 11:11am
• Cultural Differences in Television Advertising. Check: http://bit.ly/TNpYl 05/11/09 09:06am
• Cultural Differences in Television Advertising (1) http://tinyurl.com/cledul from: @http://twitter.com/beniers 05/05/09 01:09pm

• Categories

  Select Category Communication  (7) Intercultural Negotiating Skills  (1) Interkulturelles  (5) Kommunikation  (6) Management  (3) Marketing  (15) Psychologie  (4) Psychology  (4) Uncategorized  (1)

• Archiv

  Select Month August 2010  (1) July 2010  (2) June 2010  (1) May 2010  (4) April 2010  (2) March 2010  (2) September 2009  (3) August 2009  (2) July 2009  (2) June 2009  (2) May 2009  (9) April 2009  (8)