Martina Gherardi

How to solve a critical incident

In order to understand why Patrick and Francesca faced a critical incident, it is important to distinguish their cultural background from their psychological attitudes. In getting to grip with the cultural aspect, we can refer to Beamer’s cultural parameters and analyse which cultural parameters have caused Patrick and Francesca reactions.

First of all, it is worth focusing on the opposition individualism vs collectivism. Patrick’s individualist cultural background clashes with our Italian collectivism. We could “justify” our talking during the lesson by the fact that the group is at the basis of our culture: the individual is never considered on its own, but as a fibre of the social tissue. He necessarily has to be part of this tangle of relations in order to be identified as an individual. Italian people give much importance to the collective dimension, even though, because of the widespreading globalisation, cultural models are becoming all alike- and, as a consequence, the American individualism is destroying other traditional values, typical of collectivist cultures (like, for example, the importance of family). That is why we continually need to compare our ideas with the other people in the class and to be reassured by them. THIS IS A DEFENSE OF THE ITALIAN VIEWPOINT (“WE LIKE AND NEED SOCIAL NETWORKING, SO DON'T MAKE US BECOME INDIVIDUALISTS BY SITTING SILENTLY IN THE CLASSROOM, EACH STUDENT ALONE IN HIS OR HER SILENCE, IF YOU ASK THIS OF US, YOU ARE RUINING OUR TRADITIONS.”) YOU MAKE IT TO CONVINCE PATRICK TO LET YOU AND YOUR FELLOW STUDENTS TALK. BUT THIS PARAGRAPH SHOWS NO UNDERSTANING OF THE POSITIVE SIDE OF HIS VALUES. TO BE REALLY CONVINCING, THEREFORE, YOU SHOULD BUILD ON YOUR HIS VALUES. OR, AT LEAST, YOU SHOULD SHOW HIM THAT YOU SINCERELY FEEL THAT HIS VALUES ARE POSITIVE, TOO. INSTEAD YOU MAKE AN (IMPLICIT) CRITICISM OF HIS VALUES, BY DEFENDING YOURS, AND THIS PARAGRAPH MAKES YOUR ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE HIM LESS SUCCESSFUL. Example of a more successful strategy: “Dear Patrick, asking Italian students to keep quiet destroys their sense of social networking; you would like them to be independent thinkers and autonomous students, but this positive goal will take time and cannot be imposed, especially by demonstrations of anger. Why not give the students moments in which they can talk among each other during the lesson, and limit the 'no chatting' rule to other moments, which they can more easily handle because, thanks to the moments of socialization that you permit, they have a safety valve?”

INSTEAD, YOU ARGUED IN FAVOR OF SOCIALIZATION: BUT ARGUING ONLY PRODUCES COUNTER-ARGUING. IN FACT, AFTER READING YOUR PARAGRAPH, PATRICK THOUGHT: “BULLSHIT! ITALIAN STUDENTS REMAIN PERFECTLY QUIET DURING THE LESSONS OF AN AUTHORITARIAN ITALIAN TEACHER! AND THIS DOES NOT DESTROY THEIR FEELING OF COLLECTIVISM OR FAMILY VALUES. MARTINA IS USING COLLECTIVISM TO JUSTIFY LACK OF SELF RESTRAINT:. BUT IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF COLLECTIVISM HERE. IT IS A QUESTION OF REFUSING TO CONTROL ONESELF UNLESS THERE IS AN EXTERNAL AUTHORITY THAT IMPOSES ORDER. THIS IS HOW FACISM TAKES ROOT... “ ETC. ETC. So you see, Martina, your argument only made Patrick more determined in his own opinion. You did not get him to think differently, as you might have done, if you had used the way of speaking indicated above.

Another parameter to be proposed to Patrick in order to enter a bit more our world is the opposition acknowledgment/refusal of the rules. While to American people rules represent shared values, something universally accepted, and as a consequence they naturally respect them, Italian people see rules as something imposed by an authority, and therefore they tend not to accept them. This can be linked to the typically Italian hierarchical distribution of power: Italians respect the rules just when afraid of an authoritarian power which works as a deterrent. Patrick has proposed us an original (at least to us) teaching method, not imposing himself as an authoritarian person, but putting himself on the same level of students. Lacking that unconscious identification teacher=authority, we have felt free to break the rules. AGAIN, MARTINA, YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE PATRICK BY SHOWING HIM THAT THE STUDENTS HAVE A GOOD JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTING AS THEY ACTIED (AND THUS, IMPLICITLY, THAT HE IS WRONG IN ACTING AS HE ACTED).  THIS IS A VERY BAD STRATEGY FOR CONVINCING SOMEONE.   IT IS CALLED A “CONFRONTATIONAL STRATEGY” AND IT IS HOW WARS BEGIN!!!   REMEMBER: WE SAID THAT INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICTION REQUIRES YOU .TO PUT YOURSELF INTO PATRICK'S WORLD, AND THEN TO SPEAK FROM INSIDE THAT WORLD. YES, YOU CAN DEFEND YOUR ITALIAN VALUES, BUT FROM INSIDE THAT WORLD. THIS MEANS YOU SHOULD USE AMERICAN ARGUMENTS. TO DEFEND YOUR ITALIAN VALUES. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU DO NOT PUT YOURSELF INTO PATRICK'S WORLD. BY EXPLAINING AND JUSTIFYING THE STUDENTS' POINT OF VIEW, YOU ARE CONSTANTLY DEMANDING THAT HE PUT HIMSELF INTO YOUR WORLD.

WHY NOT TRY SEEING AND SAYING THINGS DIFFERENTLY? LIKE THIS: “Dear Patrick, Beamer talks about 'Rules-observant vs. Rules-bending' societies. This polarity expresses a cultural difference that you seem to be experiencing with Italian students: it offends your sense of decency when students “bend the rules”, for example when they chat during lessons or cheat during exams. You feel that this conduct creates a “cultura dei furbi” in which power ends up ultimately in the hands of the people who are the most furbi (like Mr. Berlusconi), not people who have the best arguments.  Am I correct? Do you feel this way? Well, I agree with you!!! Things would be better for EVERYONE (except for the furbastri) if we all observed therule of law, not the rule of furbizia and/or prepotenza. If we all insist that EVERYONE observe the rule of law, including our friends who chat during the lesson distracting others, things become more equal for EVERYONE.  Under the rule of law, people who are not prepotenti or furbastri can get ahead and even win over the prepotenti!!!

So now do you see, dear Patrick, that I understand and share your values? Good!!! So how can we achieve creating a desire in the students to become “rules observant”? Not by walking out of the class and slamming the door, you will agree, right? That may make students keep quiet because of fear (fear that you may terminate the course). But you don't want them to act out of fear, do you? You want them to DESIRE to be rules observant, right? For their own dignity, for their own sense of decency. Right? That means educating them. For example, have you thought of getting the students to internalize YOUR value of self-control by having them exercise control over their peers (keeping their group mates quiet) for a while? From taking turns at controlling others the students will learn to control themselves by persona interposta.

And have you ever thought of getting yourself to internalize THEIR value of irresponsible spontaneity?
You might learn to like it!! And in that case, you will not be so severe with your students during their moments of innocent spontaneity.   So what can you do to learn to RELAX and take things more easily?  Here are some suggestions.  Like you told trainers to do with Koreans (to make them relax and learn to be informal), you can do the following things for one or two months as a game. Then afterwards, you will probably begin to like these things and so continue doing them even when the game is over.
 
What are these things?
 
Well, for example, try, to see how comfortable life can be by being more “innocently spontaneous” and by:
:

-- chatting with a colleague during the tesi di laurea and not paying attention to the student's presentation,
-- chatting on your cell phone during an exam and then giving the student just sufficiente:
--allowing yourself to come late to a lesson,

--coming to class without having prepared the lesson and reading from a book,

--skipping a lesson without notice,

-- skipping a ricevimento without notice,
--not giving any tasks and so having NO homework to correct, EVER;
--not giving any handouts and so having NO handouts to prepare for the lesson, EVER;

-- not organizing any special events or activities (like the Trintiy theater activity);
-- not giving any written esoneri and so having NO esoneri to correct;
-- giving just an oral esonero or an oral final exam and so dedicating to each individual student only 15 minutes of your time during the entire academic year;
-- having, in any case, an assistant examine most of the students, relieving you of the load, even if the assistant didn't give the course and doesn't know the students as you do (marks are arbitrary anyway);.

--changing the exam program at will if you decide you don't like a certain book anymore,
etc.
etc.

 
If you allow yourself to be more irresponsibly and innocently spontaneous, you will have more fun in life!!!
 
In addition, you will be more tolerant of your students when they do the same thing, since you appreciate how important innocent spontaneity is..

So try it!!!  As a game!!!  For a month or two!!! Then you will see!!!! 
 
After this period you can try to create a “third space” with your Italian students creatively by negotiating with them the meaning of words like “keeping quiet” in class, “being on time”, “being proactive”, etc..
 
Within your third space, you will NOT be partly American and partly Italian.  And you will NOT ask your students to be partly Italian and partly American.  Rather, you will BOTH be a third “Creature” that belongs to the ad hoc culture you have created with your students. You will define the characteristics of this third space by

1. first, admitting and defining your expectations. (“Patrick, what attitude did you expect students to have toward your course? How seriously did you expect them to take it? Is this expectation reasonable, given that they are third year students and probably cynical by now?)    (“Francesca, what expectations did you really have with respect to this course?  A “fun” course where you can do what you want?     When the teacher said the course implied changing your ways of thinking and behaving, did this clash with your expectations?    What attitude did you expect the teacher to have toward you students?)
    

2. secondly, matching both parties' expectations. If both parties really understand each other, after having experienced living the other person's culture for one or two months, then they will surely find a way to eliminate some of their expectations or change them to fit the expectations of the other party;
    

3. this remapping of expectations will produce the desire for a new culture in both Patrick and Francesca – a culture that is not entirely American and not entirely Italian.  Their newly remodelled expectations will lead Patrick to justify his new way of being a teacher in terms that are not 100% American. Francesca will model her expectations of the course in terms that are not 100% Italian,. And since the culture will be jointly produced, both will believe in it.
    
   Within this new culture Patrick will not be so angry when the students chat. And Francesca (and the other students) will not chat so much.  The course will not be the same course that we have had up to now but life will be better for all parties and there will be fewer misunderstandings.

The confusion during the class was due to the new teaching method Patrick proposed us, which responds to the cultural parameter “to learn doing” (typical of the American culture) opposed to the one “learning from a teacher” (in the Italian culture). We have been actively involved in constructing the lesson and therefore the knowledge transmitted, so we have lost control of the situation. It was just a matter of adaptation to a totally new strategy we have never experienced before, and which represents a problem for us from a practical point of view.

We can therefore explain Patrick’s reaction according to the crash between American and Italian cultural parameters, but psycologycal factors played their role, too: his reaction was so exaggerated because he admitted to be under pressure at that time.
 

What about Francesca then? According to what she has declared so far, her reaction seems to be the result of psychologycal parameters. As she said, she was hurt by Patrick’s behaviour as much as she would have if a friend of her’s behaved that way- therefore including a possibile Italian person. Furthermore, she justified his reaction and seemed to understand him as far as he threw the microphone away: that was in fact the moment of the critical incidents. She declared she would have accepted a running off, but she did not stand his exploding that way: that is the reason why she got quite angry about it. If we try to explain Francesca’s reaction from a cultural point of view, we could say that, belonging to the Italian cultural background, she should be able to accept the hierarchy and any manifestation of power by a superior. As a consequence, refusing Patrick’s arrogance, it is clear that her reaction is due to psychologycal matters.

This seems to reproduce the opinion that I gave of Francesca’s reaction. But perhaps it would be better to get Francesca to define her expectations of Patrick when students chat during class, after having clearly (not jokingly) told them he did not accept chattting. Then Francesca could say what she would expect Patrick to do if chatting continued and Patrick told the students clearly (not jokingly) that he did not accept it a second time. Then a third time. Then a fourth time. Then a fifth time. Then a sixth time. Then a seventh time. Then an eighth time. Then a nineth time. Then a tenth time. (More if necessary).

By getting Francesca to DEFINE IN ADVANCE what she expects Patrick to do after the tenth time, she may not be offended when he does it.  For example, if she says that after the tenth time she would expect Patrick to say “to hell with this class”, if Patrick did say that she would not be offended.  The strategy, then, is to make Francesca proactively responsible by having her define possible expected behaviors. 

But what happened this past month, is that Francesca began the course without talking the responsibility to definie what to expect. She didn't have to think of the future, she had only to continue acting in class as she usually acts and waiting for the teacher to react (but without defining that reaction and therefore without taking repsonsibility for it).

 
“Defining expectations” is therefore an intercultural mediation strategy that will enable Francesca to cope with behavior that in other circumstances would seem to her to be that of a prima donna with no justification (or only an intellectual, post hoc justification)..

Having made all the premises clear, how is it possibile to solve this critical incident? The aim is not only to make the two parts understand each other, but to change their own way of thinking: in other words, what we need is a transformation of consciousness. We want the two people to understand each other emphatically, empathetically that is we have to make them able to enter the other’s world. Our pur pose is to make Francesca feel insulted by the talking durino the lesson, and make Patrick hate the people who behave like “prime donne” in general.

Right!

Francesca built her view of Patrick as an arrogant boss day by day, because there are certain things that caused her to see him that way. That is why it is important to Patrick to analyse his behaviour all along the experience shared with Francesca, and to find out what he did wrong to create that image of himself she cannot accept. It might be that he built his image as an authoritarian person in a negative way, that is his well-known intolerance towards authoritarianism has made his reaction so unaspected that Francesca has not been able to accept that. From a psychological point of view (since, as we have seen, Francesca’s reaction was mainly psychologycal) an authoritarian behaviour, performed by a person who is continually preaching against authoritarianism, is perceived as even stronger and untolerable. In order to enter Francesca’s world, Patrick should imagine himself sitting in Aula B, staring at this American teacher going to and fro, calling all the students by first-name, asking for their opinions, using gentle manners and leaving them the freedom to act responsibly without any need to impose rules in an authoritarian way. In a rather paradoxical way, what he preached became the trap in which he fell because of a cultural misunderstanding (that is his intolerance towards the chatting in the classroom). If he just walked off and left the class to calm down (because he was reasonably upset), Francesca would have accepted his behaviour and understood it (as she declared), but that is his loosing temper and being arrogant that made her angry. Seeing it from an external point of view, if Patrick was in Francesca’s shoes, he would have felt insulted as she was.

On the other hand, Francesca seems to be much more into Patrick’s world than he is in hers. In fact, as she has explained, she showed to share Patrick’s reaction emphatically, since she accepted his behaviour until a certain pont, when psychological elements caused the crash between the two. That is, she would have felt insulted by the students’ continous chatting, and she would have reacted samely, not accepting it and running off the classroom ( without throwing the microphone away).

In a way Francesca seems to feel Patrick’s disappointment, while Patrick should have to re-think the image of himself he has presented since the beginning of the course, and see how it clashes with his final reaction so that he provoked Francesca to be angry.

You make a good case, but as a lawyer defending Francesca. I have (obviously) made a case defending my point of view, although in a less direct way. Now we will have to sit down together and define our reciprocal expectations, given what we now know we both feel.

Irene Vecchiotti

Report for intercultural mediation

On my personal opinion, when two different cultures get in touch with each other it's necessary for them to be clear in a very specific way. Especially if people belonging to different cultural backgrounds have to work together, before starting to do every kind of work, they have to establish a specific behaviour which should represent a sort of match point between the two cultures.

In analysing Beamer's dimensions of culture I realized that they wouldn't be very useful, for example, in the critical incident concerning Alitalia and KLM, although we would need these parameters in a different situation. And, on my opinion, that's because they're too much generic and they only take in consideration "stereotypes", without regarding possible variations due to people's personality and to people's background.

So I would suggest every company to do an intercultural meeting before starting a new important work with companies of different cultures in order to know each others well.

During each meeting the main agent of each company should turn to the other one several questions, previously decided by all the employers. These questions should be specific about the work that they have to do together, such as:

- What's your usual working strategy?

- what sort of behaviour do you have during work hours among employers?

- What features do you think the best employer should have?

- What makes you really bother and what you don't tolerate about a workmate?

But also questions concerning past life experiences, in order to draw up a sort of "psycological curriculum", thus preventing some inappropriate reactions.

I know it would take a lot of time, and mabye all this would seem a little bit strange, but I think it would be necessary to carry on a successful work that could avoid them to fall into a critical incident.

In the case of you (prof.Boylan) and Francesca, I think you two should come to an understanding point, negociating different behaviours with each others in different context.

I would do with you the same job I did with KLM and Alitalia. It's to say: if I know what bothers with you, than I'll try not to do it anymore, and I'm sure you'll do the same for me.

Sorry, Irene!!  This is a typical response of many students – that is why I chose your paper as an example.  I want students to see what they should NOT consider to be a possible solution.   Because, in reality, it is an impossible one.   Let me explain.
 
Your view is entirely illusory, in my opinion.  Your “volemmose bene” and “fammo 'no sforzo ognuno” philosphy may work with two people who are in love and who are disposed to “loose” to the other.  But it is illusory to think that, in the business world, or even in the classroom, people can resolve their problems “con un atto di bbona volontà”. You are living in a world of dreams, if you think that.
 
Our classroom is an economic entity with conflicting economic interests.  Yes, that's right: it's like the business world. There are conflicting economic interests. 
 
The teacher wants to get the students to work (raise their level of knowledge in the discipline taught) while doing as little as possible (I indicated above a list of things that Italian teachers do NOT generally do, because they want to work as little as possible).  
 
And the students want to get the teacher to work (for example, to produce handouts for them or, more simply, to “explain things so clearly to them that they don't have to think”) while doing as little as possible themselves.  In addition, students want to be able to permit themselves to be “innocently spontaneous” (for example, by chatting when they feel like it). It is up to the teacher to do the work of maintaining some kind of order.
 
Thus, there are economic interests in conflict:  the teacher will earn more money per calorie of energy spent, if s/he can get students to study on their own.  (Italian teachers are very good at this.)  
 
Thus teachers and students are in win/loose situation with (apparently) NO win/win solution possible.
 
If the teacher wins (= if s/he produces top students while doing almost nothing) this means that the students loose economically (they have done all the work).  If the students win economically (learning is made easy for them), then the teacher looses (he has to do all those tasks that were listed before).
 
In an win/loose economic situation you cannot say to each of the parties: “Daje, fammo 'no sforzo ognuno” as you have done. The people involved will laugh at you if you make such a proposal.

Perhaps in this case, to be proactive should have meant:

first, to explain in the very first lesson how does prof.Boylan conceive a lesson, what makes him angry in students' behaviour and what he doesn't stand; then, what students like or dislike the teacher to do, if they agree or not with the teacher's method, what bad or good experience did they have with other teachers (Italian or not), what opinion do they have about teachers in general, and so on.

I guess that the main difficulty we find when we meet people from different cultures is due to the fact that we are not able to revoke our roots and our habits, not even for a moment.

I guess that is because of our education and our patriotic spirit.

And also because of not-immediately-apparent conflicting economic interests!!!.

Listen, Irene, after the explanation I gave above, are you convinced now that a classroom is “un terreno di scontro economico”?  If you are convinced that it is, do you admit that you did not see things like that before?  If you admit this, then you agree that you did not really understand the problem. It is not a question of “patriotic spirit”. Or not ONLY a question of patriotic spirit. What you call “patriotic spirit” is in reality vested economic interests that you do not admit to having. If a teacher touches your economic interests, you defend them by calling them “patriotic spirit.”   The war in Iraq is exactly the same thing.

I don't think I revoluzionized intercultural mediation methods, but I tried to be as much pragmatic as I could!

Well, I am asking you to be even more pragmatic!