Final Presentation

See powerpoint presentation attached in email

Final Cultural Reporter Blog

          A significant amount can be learned about one’s own culture through the study of another. In particular, I have been studying business students’ perception of engineers to learn more about the interactions of these two groups. Collaboration between businessmen and engineers is especially important in the workplace as effective teams require people of diverse skills. Now that sufficient observation and study on the topic has been completed, previously discussed concepts can be reviewed and examined, new remarks can be discussed, and some important conclusions can be made.

Previous work studied how the topics of personal identity, value orientation, and communication type were applied to businessmen-engineer interactions. An interview with a UNL business student, Dylan McAugherty, revealed that business people can be extremely goal oriented and often label engineers as “that nerdy group” (personal communication, October 19^th, 2012). Additionally, value orientations of each group sometimes rely on a specific person’s role within that group. For example, the amount of uncertainty avoidance observed in an accountant would be different than that of a marketing student, even though they are both under the larger umbrella of business students. More recent observations provide further support for some of these suppositions but also have created new hypotheses.  

In addition to previously performed interviews, an interview was conducted with another UNL student, Donnie Earl. Throughout the interview, Donnie expressed his belief that engineers generally work very hard to achieve their goals. He seemed to exhibit a lot of respect for what engineers are able to accomplish and how they go about their profession (personal communication, November 15^th, 2012). Interestingly, this supposition contradicts what Dylan’s observations on engineers. Furthermore, Donnie also mentioned that he does think engineers and business do try to talk differently when interacting with each other to enhance communication. This is effectively a form of code switching, which according to Martin, refers to the “phenomenon of changing languages, dialects, or even accents” (2012).

My field observations seem to indicate that the cultural differences between business students and engineers are really not that significant. I spent a couple hours essentially roaming around the CBA building. Various amounts of time were spent in different study areas and social areas. Frankly, I didn't notice anything much different from what might be an average day in the engineering block. In most areas students could be seen diligently working on homework or casually talking with each other (Evan Hilgemann, observation data, November 12^th, 2012). It follows that the cultural differences between engineers and businessmen are not as large in relaxed social settings as they might be in a professional group. I think that this hypothesis makes logical sense. In professional settings, pressure can be high to get the job one and friction can occur between people that have different ways of solving problems. However, in a social setting, people can generally just be, well, people. There’s no need competition on the best way to achieve a goal. I think social groups, like that I observed in CBA and can be seen in Nebraska Hall, generally are a mechanism for people to relax and an area where people don’t necessarily need to live up to their cultural stereotypes. Using the following Dilbert comic as an example, the engineer likely feels that it is his job to fix the ‘problem’, this may not occur in a social group where an engineer may not feel that they need to fulfill the role of problem fixer.

Given the amount of information that has been collected, one can make three important generalized conclusions on the interactions between businessmen and engineers. First off, it is obvious that there are some notable differences between the two groups, especially when it comes to workplace interactions. Dylan McAugherty indicated that engineers are generally viewed with some incredulity, in that they are perceived as socially inept and “probably not worth talking to anyway” (personal communication, October 19^th, 2012). Communication can be difficult between engineers and businessmen. Engineers have a tendency to speak in more technical terms and use more specific language. Donnie Earl indicated that code switching is common between engineers and businessmen to help with communication issues.

Secondly, it can be stated that the labels “engineer” and “businessmen” are largely diffuse terms and do not work very well to indicate a specific group of people. For example, many engineers start their careers in a technical profession. However, they later make the decision to go back to school, earn a management degree, and advance through the business management ranks. It begs to ask whether these people would be considered engineers or businessmen. Expanding on this point, Sasha Gurke makes a reasoned argument on why engineers make the best business leaders on the business oriented website, the Business Insider.  Burke states that 20% of the Fortune 500 CEOs have engineering degrees and references notable American engineers/businessmen like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison (2011).

Lastly, the interviews and personal observations prove that engineers and business people do indeed have a significant amount in common and there is an amount of mutual respect between the groups. For example Donnie Earl indicated that he thinks people have a significant amount of respect for what engineers are able to accomplish (personal communication, November 15^th, 2012). It seems apparent that the differences between engineers and businessmen start to dissolve when people are put into more social settings. This was observed throughout the CBA building. In the end it comes down to people eventually wanting to act just as people, and not be defined by engineers, businessmen, or otherwise.

In conclusion, the interactions between businessmen and engineers are certainly important. They are vital to the successful operation of almost any professional venture. The two groups have their differences, but of course, those differences can be easily overcome through effective knowledge of one situation and a firm grasp of effective communication strategies.

And finally, since I can’t get enough of Dilbert, here’s another good one:

Adams, S. (2012, November 16th). Dilbert. Retrieved from http://dilbert.com/

Gurke, S. (2012, December 19). Why engineers could make the best business leaders. Retrieved from http://articles.businessinsider.com

Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2012). Intercultural communication in contexts (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Application of Intercultural Theory

Note: Topic has been changed from Roman culture to business students

                Even though intercultural communications is largely based on the study of the interactions between different races, cultures, or religions, a surprising amount can be learned from the interaction of people with different academic backgrounds. Since I am an engineer myself, this report will focus primarily on the culture of business students, particularly with reference to academic and professional settings. To study the differences, one should look at a few key indicators such as personal identity, value orientations, and communication type.

It is prudent to discuss the generally accepted differences between business students and engineers. An online blog describes each group’s character well in the terms of an ongoing conflict: “the logical, practical engineer butting heads with the uncomprehending, inefficient business major. Or wait – is it instead the visionary manager struggling to focus a socially inept engineer puttering off on an inscrutable tangent?” (Miss Outsider, 2011). As described, engineers are generally seen as logical and practical, while businessmen take on managerial and visionary identities. Many Dilbert comics provide entertaining commentary on the communication difficulties between engineers and businessmen.

                Personal identity is, of course, vital to studying any culture.  Martin describes a personal identity as “who we think we are and who others think we are.” (2012). To determine the self-identity of business students, I have drawn from my previous experiences working with businessmen, as well as interviews with business students. Dylan McAugherty, a business student at UNL (see image), indicated that business students are very much goal oriented and will do whatever it takes to achieve their objective. Dylan believes that the phrase “don’t take it personal, it’s just business” rings very true within the business community. Dylan also provided a view of engineers from within the business perspective. He discussed how most business students view engineers as “the nerdy group that’s probably not worth talking to because no one can understand a damn thing they say anyway.”  (personal communication, October 19, 2012).

                Much in the same way different cultures value different principles, business students also have a certain set of value orientations. Martin describes the four Hofstede Value Orientations, of which uncertainty avoidance and Short-term/Long-term orientation are particularly pertinent. Current business student Ian Smith commented on these values. Firstly, uncertainty avoidance refers to the acceptance of rules and procedures by a group. The amount of uncertainty avoidance preferred by business students appears to be based on their specific position. For example, it was indicated that an accountant would prefer to have specific rules to follow whereas a marketing student would rather have a more open ended problem to solve (personal communication, October 19, 2012). Short-term/Long-term orientation refers to a group’s preference for quick results vs. perseverance. Even though business students can fall on either end of this spectrum, managers are more likely to be short term oriented. After all, a successful business is built on the ability to provide quick results to a client. It is important to note that value orientations are not universal across people of the same group. For example, many engineers decide to enter the management field and end up earning an MBA degree. These people likely have more of the value orientations inherent to business students in the first place.

                 Even when an engineer and businessmen both speak English, adequate communication can be challenging because of each groups’ different points of view. However, effective communication between the groups is vital because successful teams must include people with varying backgrounds. From personal experience, I have found code switching to be a useful tool. Code switching refers to changing language or dialect to fit a situation (Martin, 2012). In the business-engineering example, the actual language spoken is not any different, but the jargon and intonations are different. As Dylan mentioned during the course of his interview, engineers are more likely to use technical jargon.  Business students prefer to put value on the overall end goal and how to work towards it, as opposed to the specific mechanisms needed to achieve that goal.

                Despite the differences between business and engineering oriented people, it seems that the most successful individuals have traits inherent to both groups. The Silicon Valley goliaths such Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, and Steve Jobs come to mind. Each one of them had the technical knowhow to create a product that is desirable in the marketplace. However, they also had enough business sense to develop their ideas into wildly successful businesses.

                Overall communication between people of different academic backgrounds is vital to the success of a workplace. In particular, differences between engineers and business students are apparent in their personal identity and value orientations. However, the differences can be overcome by using effective communication techniques such as code switching.

Further study on this project will include a couple hours of observation of business students in their… natural habitat?

Finally, because I like Dilbert, please enjoy the following comic strip.

Adams, S. (2012, October 18). Dilbert. Retrieved from http://www.dilbert.com/

Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2012). Intercultural communication in contexts (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Miss Outsider. (2011, April 2011). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://engineerblogs.org

Personal interviews: see in text citations (as per http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/11/)

Introductory Blog: Roman Culture

                I will be studying the Roman culture for my cultural identity project. Rome is an entity that has a significant place world history. After all, at its peak, the Roman Empire had control over much of Europe and the entire Mediterranean region, stretching even into Persia and northern Africa as shown in the following map (Livius 1912).

Figure 1: Map of the Roman Empire at its peak

Even today, elements of the Roman culture still exist in obscure areas such as Croatia and Tunisia in Figures 2 and 3 respectively (Barone 2010). I took this project as an opportunity to learn about European history, something I am not very knowledgeable on. I can think of no better way to do this than to study one of the greatest and most influential cultures of all time.

                                       

 Figure 2: Roman ruins in Pula, Croatia                Figure 3: Roman ruins in El-Jem, Tunisia

                Martin defines culture as “learned patterns of behavior and attitude shared by a group of people.” (2012) However, it is difficult to put the entire Roman culture under one umbrella. Geographically, the entire populace was indeed “Roman” and shared common allegiances. However, the backgrounds of people living in areas such as Spain and Egypt vary so much; one can almost say they should constitute different cultures. In a similar manner, it would be difficult to define someone from New England and Hawai’i as from the same culture if they weren’t both on American soil. Hence, this project will focus less on the actual Roman culture, and more on how being Roman effected the local cultures of each region. For example, what elements of the Roman Empire still remain in Algeria? Do people living in present day Rome still relate to the historical Roman culture? How did the technological prowess on the Romans effect the overall development of Europe even after the fall of the empire? How did regions not traditionally attached to Europe, like Egypt, react to being under Roman rule, and are there lessons there that can be applied to conflicts today?

                Despite the fact that there is no Roman empire today, the interpretive approach can still be used to study their culture. People living in what was once the heart of the Roman Empire still likely relate with the Roman culture. Furthermore, the Romans left plenty of things behind for us to study. This lends itself to using qualitative studies to see how the Romans lived. Even though we may not be able to talk to a true Roman, structures such as the Coliseum give pretty good hints to their culture. The Roman culture lends itself particularly well to the rhetoric approach, analyzing texts and historical events in the context in which they occur (Martin 2012). The historical context of the Roman culture is significantly different that today’s world, so one must be able to immerse themselves in the context of the culture.

Barone, J. (2010, March 15). Roman Ruins Outside of Rome. Retrieved from http://www.bootsnall.com

Livius, T. (1912). The History of Rome. (Vol. 1). New York: E.P. Dutton and Co. Retrieved from etext.virginia.edu

Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T.K. (2012). Intercultural Communication in Contexts (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Cultural Identity Video

Hilgemann Cultural Identity Video