Ethics & culture specialist Flashcards
(16 cards)
Summarise the key factors that may cause misunderstanding in intercultural communication? Use Zhu (2013) in your answer
Accordring to Zhu misunderstanding is when a listener fails to make sense of what is going on.
The key factors that may cause misunderstanding is:
- Inadequate linguistic proficiency
- Pragmatic mismatch
- Clash of styles
- Mismatch in schemas and cultural stereotypes
- Mismatch in contextualisation and framing
Explain inadequate linguistic proficiency
Participants use a shared language but with different skill levels. This can cause problems like
Lexical problems → Some words are too difficult or uncommon
Mishearing → People hear the wrong word because of accents or pronunciation
Syntactic complexity → Long or complex sentences can be hard to follow
Explain pragmatic mismatch
People don’t understand the intended meaning of what is said
Pragmalinguistic failure → happens when the meaning sounds wrong or too direct/indirect to native speakers.
Sociopragmatic failure → happens when cultural rules (like politeness, formality, or status) are misunderstood.
Zhu also notes that people from different cultures express emotions (like anger or love) differently depending on which language they use. This can also cause misunderstandings
Explain clash of styles
Misunderstanding can also happen due to clashes in communication styles. Unlike language or grammar problems, these clashes are not always visible and they often happen over a longer conversation without any clear breakdown.
Explain mismatch in schemas and cultural stereotypes
Mismatch in schemas → lack of knowledge about the system and procedures
Cultural stereotypes → when we judge or misunderstand people based on generalizations about their culture. If we have negative stereotypes, we tend to look for evidence to confirm them
Explain mismatch in contextualisation and framing
Contextualisation → people use verbal and non-verbal cues to interpret meaning based on past experience.
There are different types of contextualisation cues for example
Prospody → how something is said (tone of voice)
Paralinguistic signs → pauses, hesitations, speed of speaking
Misunderstanding can happen when these cues are misinterpreted
UNDP Paragon Regional Governance Programme (2004) examines several anti-corruption practices at the project level. Discuss their effectiveness in PM.
UNDP (2004) presents different ways to fight corruption in projects. These tools help make sure that projects are managed fairly and openly.
Examples of these strategies are:
Motivation: When staff are motivated and understand what is expected, they are more likely to act honestly.
Amnesties and plea bargains: Letting people avoid punishment if they tell the truth can help uncover serious corruption.
Laws, rules, and codes: Clear rules help people know what is right and wrong.
Management systems: Good systems and routines make it harder to cheat or misuse resources.
Advantages of the several anti-corruption practices
These tools are effective in project management because they improve control, reduce risk, and help build an honest and reliable project environment.
Disadvantages of the several anti-corruption practices
They can be hard to implement in practice. They may require extra time, money, and skilled staff, which not all projects have. In some cases, they can even create tension or reduce trust if people feel controlled or judged.
PMI’s Ethical Decision-Making Framework (nd) is the best tool to use when dealing with an ethical dilemma. Evaluate providing examples from your project or beyond.
The framework describes steps that can be used when confronted with an ethical dilemma. It’s a way of deciding how to navigate the ethical dilemma that you have. The tool is divided into five parts, and is broad enough that it will apply to most situations.
Example from our project (Ethical Decision-Making Framework)
In our project, we only included male students with an ethnic minority background, as this group has a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. This raised an ethical dilemma: Is it fair to exclude ethnic Danish students who may also be at risk?
Using PMI’s Ethical Decision-Making Framework, we can assess the situation. The steps are Assessment, Alternatives, Analysis, Application and Action.
Assessment - (Ethical Decision-Making Framework)
We reviewed laws, values, and stakeholder expectations. It did not break any rules, but fairness to the other students was a concern
Alternatives - (Ethical Decision-Making Framework)
We considered including all students
Analysis - (Ethical Decision-Making Framework)
We found our decision would have the greatest positive impact without harming others. Would bring greater health benefits and raise awareness where it’s most needed.
Application - (Ethical Decision-Making Framework)
We checked alignment with PMI values: responsibility, fairness, respect, and honesty.
Responsibility – to address health inequality.
Fairness – to be transparent about selection criteria.
Respect – for all students and their backgrounds.
Honesty – in explaining our choice clearly to stakeholders.
Action - (Ethical Decision-Making Framework)
We moved forward with the targeted group and can defend the decision ethically.
Conclusion: PMI’s framework helped us make a clear, ethical decision in a complex situation. It’s a valuable tool for navigating ethical dilemmas in project work.
