The last two sessions were quite interesting. These lessons alleviated my fears on SES, because the thought of Reflective Journals and Research Papers (this especially) was very intimidating. Having gone through these two lessons, I feel that the topics of discussions are quite easy to discuss and really can improve my thoughts.
I wasn't really prepared for these lessons though. For the first one, I didn't make notes. For the second one, my notes were minimal. Thus my participation in class was probably greatly compromised. I tried my best to participate though.
It was about Google, Apple and Lenovo. The work cultures in these three companies are ever so different. All of them have their pros and cons. I personally feel that The Google Way of management is very innovative. Who wouldn't want freedom during work! I mean, there's free lunch, free facilities, subsidized services.... It's great! How does this work though? You give them so much freedom, and provide for their welfare, how do you make sure that the company actually profits?
Google
I feel that there actually is no guarantee. Google is placing a large bet that the workers would actually do work. Perhaps it's because the workers feel indebted to the carefree lifestyle provided in work. But won't all the free food and such distract the workers. Well, maybe these 'distractions' become so common that workers don't get distracted at all! There are many pros and cons to the Google way, but one cannot deny that it is being implemented in Google, and it's working very well!
Is this system productive? Or is it counter-productive? I feel that it might potentially go both ways. The only thing that is keeping this system productive is the workers themselves. They seem to possess a work attitude that can accomodate the Google way. I think that this is because of the education system in America. Students are encouraged to ask and be curious about things.
The issue here is not whether the Google way is good or not, but rather whether it can be implemented worldwide. This is where Apple and Lenovo comes into play.
Apple and Lenovo
In Apple, it is very clear who's the boss - Steve Jobs. Work is very strict compared to Google, and there is a strict hierarchy. This is even more exaggerated in Lenovo. The workers do not ask questions, but only obey orders. Orders, orders and orders. That's what the Chinese want.
I think this is due to the fact that the Chinese are taught really differently. The cultural difference between China and the West is just too big. Perhaps it's all about the Confucian idealogy, where respect is really important. Perhaps to the Chinese, questioning and coming up with new ideas is just disrespect?
This causes a problem. It really stifles innovation and creativity. Alot of Chinese products are purely copies! Now there's nothing wrong with getting inspirations though. The iPhone was inspired by touchscreen phones. However, what China needs to do is to change their product somehow to make it better than the "copied products" ! This is severely stifled by the oppressive work conditions. China needs to be more enthusiastic in their work.
No matter how you think about it, the Google Way is a no-no in China. They are probably more comfortable with the strict hierarchy in China
However, the way this works might not be so bad after all. Although creativity might be stifled, Chinese generally get things done. You have to admit it, the Chinese copy very well. The thing is, since distractions are not allowed, work is finished very efficiently. Maybe something innovative will come in awhile, and when that happens, I suspect something great is on its way. This something could potentially boost China's economy and place it as the economic superpower.
This is evident by the fact that Lenovo is doing quite well. In my previous class 2i2, there were 3 out of 25 people who were using Lenovo computers. Not that bad, in my opinion, considering the fact that it is a Chinese company. However, I find it lacks a certain something. The design isn't particularly appealing. They all look the same - plain. This is what China needs to change. They have to innovate and think up of new ideas to please their customers.
To wrap this up, the most important thing China needs to do now is to be more culturally intelligent (linking back to the first lesson). It needs to be able to adapt to different systems so that it can really become the economic superpower of the world
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Cultural Intelligence
Today was the first actual lesson for SES. Unfortunately, my mood during the first part of the lesson was deeply affected because I forgot to read up on the two articles necessary to facilitate discussion. The lesson was interesting enough though, so I guess it's still quite all right.
What exactly is cultural intelligence? Cultural refers to the ability to "understand how to encounter new cultural situations, judge what goes on in them and make appropriate adjustments in order to act and behave effectively in those otherwise disorienting circumstances". Or at least, that's what was said in class. To me, cultural intelligence can be simply understood as "knowing how to act in front of different cultures", which is in essence exactly what the given definition is saying.
Do I have cultural intelligence? Well, if anyone had asked me that question before I attended today's lesson, I would have confidently said "Yes". Coming from a Japanese and Chinese background, I have had alot of insights to the Japanese culture and Chinese culture, and the differences and similarities between them.
For example, they are both similar in their attitude towards the number: 4. Yes, quite particular indeed. In fact, Japanese hospital wards never contain the number 4 (from what I have heard from my Japanese teacher). The reason behind this is that the number 4 has a close resemblance (in reading) to the word "death".
One thing that is different in Japan, and that I find very interesting, is that seniors (even if only 1 year older) are treated like god. When a junior happens to see a senior, he would politely give way to him, and bow as he passes along.
With that kind of background knowledge, coupled with my narrow mind, it was obvious that I thought I had CQ.
After today's lesson, I finally realised how wrong I was.
For one, the world isn't confined to just Japan, Singapore and China. What about America? What about India? Vietnam? Iran? Russia? All these are countries whose cultures are totally foreign to me. This is where I fail in the "Knowledge"-competency of CQ.
Further more, do I have the interest in knowing about the other cultures? Frankly speaking, no. Unless I am attending an immersion programme and my pride is at stake. This is where I fail in the "Drive"-competency of CQ.
Additionally, I have never experienced other cultures much before, and thus am unsure on how to switch and adapt to different situations. This is where I fail in "Strategy" and "Action".
I have just mentioned 4 things in the previous few paragraphs, that is "Knowledge", "Drive", "Strategy" and "Action". This is in essence the bulk of what we learnt today. Cultural intelligence, according to Mr David Livermore can be formulated into these 4 competencies. "Knowledge" being how much one knows, "Drive" being interest and confidence, "Strategy" being that ability to plan beforehand on how to behave and reflect, and "Action" being the capability to adapt to different situation. This seemed like the important part of the lesson.
This is where my belief of cultural intelligence starts to veer dangerously off course.
I do not believe that cultural intelligence can be formulated just like that. From what I intepret of the lesson, it seems as though Mr David Livermore is saying this:
"Knowledge" + "Drive" + "Strategy" + "Action" = "CQ"
This makes CQ look like some math equation, which is the totally wrong way of approaching CQ. Or at least that's what I think so. You may have "Knowledge", "Drive", "Strategy" and "Action" but it does NOT give you "CQ" by default. I would like to think of CQ as something to be learnt by experience. Something that one lacks at first, but one hones through the years through various exchange and immersion programmes.
What I am saying, in a nutshell, is that the only way CQ can every be gained, is through experiential learning.
After the lesson, another thing left in my mind unanswered was this: Is CQ useful? Well, since I plan to study abroad in the future, I guess it's useful for me... BUT. Is it useful for everyone? Even for that poor student in school? Even for that person who loves Singapore so much he doesn't want to step out of the country?
I think that although "cultural intelligence" is called "cultural" intelligence, I think that it can be applied similarly to not only different cultures, but different social status even within a country. In other words, the acceptance and tolerance needed for interaction between Chinese and Malays is one and the same as that between the poor and the rich, the privileged and the underprivileged. Thus, I strongly feel that CQ will be useful for every single Singaporean, and in fact every single Earthling!
Having attended this lesson and read the relevant article, I know feel confident about my knowledge on CQ. From now on, I will try to grasp any opportunity that allows me to expand my knowledge on the different cultures.
Oh, and now I know: I am not that culturally intelligent after all, but I am willing to learn.
Akira Makino
3S201
What exactly is cultural intelligence? Cultural refers to the ability to "understand how to encounter new cultural situations, judge what goes on in them and make appropriate adjustments in order to act and behave effectively in those otherwise disorienting circumstances". Or at least, that's what was said in class. To me, cultural intelligence can be simply understood as "knowing how to act in front of different cultures", which is in essence exactly what the given definition is saying.
Do I have cultural intelligence? Well, if anyone had asked me that question before I attended today's lesson, I would have confidently said "Yes". Coming from a Japanese and Chinese background, I have had alot of insights to the Japanese culture and Chinese culture, and the differences and similarities between them.
For example, they are both similar in their attitude towards the number: 4. Yes, quite particular indeed. In fact, Japanese hospital wards never contain the number 4 (from what I have heard from my Japanese teacher). The reason behind this is that the number 4 has a close resemblance (in reading) to the word "death".
One thing that is different in Japan, and that I find very interesting, is that seniors (even if only 1 year older) are treated like god. When a junior happens to see a senior, he would politely give way to him, and bow as he passes along.
With that kind of background knowledge, coupled with my narrow mind, it was obvious that I thought I had CQ.
After today's lesson, I finally realised how wrong I was.
For one, the world isn't confined to just Japan, Singapore and China. What about America? What about India? Vietnam? Iran? Russia? All these are countries whose cultures are totally foreign to me. This is where I fail in the "Knowledge"-competency of CQ.
Further more, do I have the interest in knowing about the other cultures? Frankly speaking, no. Unless I am attending an immersion programme and my pride is at stake. This is where I fail in the "Drive"-competency of CQ.
Additionally, I have never experienced other cultures much before, and thus am unsure on how to switch and adapt to different situations. This is where I fail in "Strategy" and "Action".
I have just mentioned 4 things in the previous few paragraphs, that is "Knowledge", "Drive", "Strategy" and "Action". This is in essence the bulk of what we learnt today. Cultural intelligence, according to Mr David Livermore can be formulated into these 4 competencies. "Knowledge" being how much one knows, "Drive" being interest and confidence, "Strategy" being that ability to plan beforehand on how to behave and reflect, and "Action" being the capability to adapt to different situation. This seemed like the important part of the lesson.
This is where my belief of cultural intelligence starts to veer dangerously off course.
I do not believe that cultural intelligence can be formulated just like that. From what I intepret of the lesson, it seems as though Mr David Livermore is saying this:
"Knowledge" + "Drive" + "Strategy" + "Action" = "CQ"
This makes CQ look like some math equation, which is the totally wrong way of approaching CQ. Or at least that's what I think so. You may have "Knowledge", "Drive", "Strategy" and "Action" but it does NOT give you "CQ" by default. I would like to think of CQ as something to be learnt by experience. Something that one lacks at first, but one hones through the years through various exchange and immersion programmes.
What I am saying, in a nutshell, is that the only way CQ can every be gained, is through experiential learning.
After the lesson, another thing left in my mind unanswered was this: Is CQ useful? Well, since I plan to study abroad in the future, I guess it's useful for me... BUT. Is it useful for everyone? Even for that poor student in school? Even for that person who loves Singapore so much he doesn't want to step out of the country?
I think that although "cultural intelligence" is called "cultural" intelligence, I think that it can be applied similarly to not only different cultures, but different social status even within a country. In other words, the acceptance and tolerance needed for interaction between Chinese and Malays is one and the same as that between the poor and the rich, the privileged and the underprivileged. Thus, I strongly feel that CQ will be useful for every single Singaporean, and in fact every single Earthling!
Having attended this lesson and read the relevant article, I know feel confident about my knowledge on CQ. From now on, I will try to grasp any opportunity that allows me to expand my knowledge on the different cultures.
Oh, and now I know: I am not that culturally intelligent after all, but I am willing to learn.
Akira Makino
3S201
Friday, January 13, 2012
Introductory Lesson
Today was the first lesson, or rather the introductory lesson for SES. The idea of SES did not seem particularly scary at first. I thought that it was some thing interesting for a change. Not something so dead like geography or history...
So, I awaited for the teacher to come into class, and I think I was actually looking forward to the lesson! However, within a few minutes I crashed back in to reality.
...TBC...
So, I awaited for the teacher to come into class, and I think I was actually looking forward to the lesson! However, within a few minutes I crashed back in to reality.
...TBC...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)