Diversity and Conlfict

Noelle Marietta
OGL 350
Prof. Maisano
Feb. 21st 2021

My score for my Personal Diversity Maturity Index was 88. Funnily enough I remember
taking this test awhile back in another class. My score has improved for sure since the last time,
which I should hope it would. I don’t remember what my score was exactly, but I do remember
having multiple of my answers come back as 5 pointers. Taking this test again reminded me
that I tend to focus more on the community and personal side of things over the business side.
For instance, on question seven I only scored seven points because I chose the answer that
meant dispute resolution between the groups when the optimal answer had to do with the
company’s bottom line. This revelation is easy to see when I look at my answer to question #3,
“What is the most important reason to respond to diversity effectively?” my answer was that it
was the moral, right thing to do. The answer that would have earned me full points was that it
would make the company more competitive.

The story of the elephant and giraffe was one that I had not heard before, it’s an easy
way to see the need for the exact purpose of diversity and the complexities of it. The first thing
that struck me that it was a perfect example of diversity in teams (Roosevelt, 1996). The giraffe
invites the elephant in to see his workshop in hopes that he may want to work on projects
together, but the workshop was not made to suite an elephant. In the workplace we may
encourage and openly invite those that would bring diversity to our team, but we have to be
willing to change ourselves and the team structure so that they be able to work together
effectively. we know that diversity in groups has many pros and cons, one of them being the
conflict that arises. There is conflict between the giraffe and the elephant as they struggle with
the realization that the giraffe’s house will not accommodate the elephant. But without the
conflict, the giraffe would never have thought outside his own world view, and if the giraffe had
thought to make his house more accommodating to his friends before the conflict, he may have
made a good effort but would inevitably fall short in his efforts without the input of an elephant
who could give his point of view and input on the structure. To me there is a direct line here
between the diversity maturity index and this story. In the example about the church that has a
mostly white demographic has adopted a school that’s students are mostly of African American
descent. The church has asked for mentors and all the ones who volunteered from the church
are white. The question is how I would address this situation and, in the end, the best answer is
marked as the one where you discuss the matter with African American members so as to
solicit their input and thoughts on the situation. I see a connection in that this may be an
uncomfortable conversation, but their input is invaluable, and they are the only ones who can
provide the needed input.

To continue on the idea of conflict and it’s inevitableness, I loved the quote in
the Effective Multicultural Teams chapter (Halverson & Ungerleider, 2009) “Peace is not the
absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict—
alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence” –Dorothy Thompson.
I must argue that conflict is all around us, everyday. Iron sharpens Iron, yes? That’s the way I
see conflict, it sharpens the group participants in their response to differing ideas and thoughts,
ones that they may feel strongly about. I need others to share their experiences and
perspective with me in order to see outside my own little box that I know, and in return they
need me to see my side of things. If I hurt someone in my words or deeds due to ignorance on
my part, I need them to share the fact that I hurt them. I need them to share how I can di
better, and in return I need to share where my side so that we can work together to find the
root of the issue. That way we can both go from that interaction with new knowledge, that may
help us both avoid a similar interaction in the future. All the peace we have ever known in this
world was fought for through negotiations and war sadly sometimes war. There was conflict,
but the hope is that the conflict is helpful and not hurtful. This leads right into what the author
was speaking about later in the chapter, that in order to achieve deep dialogue, we must have
authentic expression and active listening. Again I see these points as something we should not
be just utilizing in certain groups or the workplace, but in our everyday relationships. how many
arguments have you had with a sibling, partner, or friend due to lack of active listening? We
hear things through our own translator and many times that leads to miscommunication. When
we actively listen and confirm that what we’re hearing is what the other person is saying aligns,
then we can communicate more effectively. Have you listened to others argue and realized that
they were each hearing different things from each other? I’ve experienced this with my siblings,
as a bystander I can more clearly see what each one is saying and see when they’re no longer
on the same page. I find that this happens most often with topics that elicit emotion or strong
conviction. I find that my thinking on the topic of achieving deep dialogue is that it is like most
things, you must practice at it. So while in this class we may be talking about it in terms of the
workplace, we must practice in all parts if our lives in order to truly hone these skills. How can
you expect yourself to be open and vulnerable in the workplace if you can’t do it at home?
Authentic expression asks that we give honest interpersonal feedback, that we take ownership
of our opinions, which can be hard and make you feel vulnerable. The same goes for active
listening, if you can’t pay your partner the respect of being open to their ideas and encouraging
their clarification on their idea(s), how will you expect yourself to with a co-worker?

As we know negotiations can lead to conflict. When we attempt at deep dialogue we

need to take into account the background of those that we’re negotiating with. In the article by
Lubin, we see that there are unique ways in which we can see certain countries tend to
negotiate (2014). So for instance the Hungarians may want to be conscious of their tendency to
talk over others when dealing with someone of German descent who may be relying on logic
primarily. Or an American in negotiations with a Bulgarian will need to keep in mind that they
tend to be circuitous in negotiations. These are the types of factors that must be included when
we’re dealing with areas of conflict, not only must we strive for deep dialogue but the cultural
tendencies cannot be ignored.

References:

Halverson, C. B., & Ungerleider, J. (2009). In Effective Multicultural Teams theory and Practice
(pp. 211–238). essay, Springer.

Lubin, G. (2014, March 25). These Diagrams Reveal How To Negotiate With People Around The
World. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/communication-charts-around-the-
world-2014-3#.UzXUYfldWSr.

Roosevelt, T.R. (1996). Giraffe and Elephant.