Applied Intercultural Communication: Poland

obligatory courses

Course objectives:

The course provides an introduction to the principles of cross-cultural communication and negotiations. The course focuses on how cultural differences can be used to find better solutions for dilemmas inherent in international business relations. Special focus of the course will placed on cultural differences between Poland and US as well as between Poland and other EU member countries.

An assignment will be connected to the lecture in order to train participants to use various tools to solve specific business issues bound to culture differences

Lecture 1. & 2. (8 hours) Concepts of culture, communication and negotiations.

1.Goals of the intercultural communication training program’s

2.Cross-cultural encounters for global executive

3. Components of cross-cultural competence

4. Model of Polish culture

5. Communication and negotiations as culturally specific interpersonal dynamics in cotext of Poland and other formerly socialists countries.

Simulation

Readings:

Trompenaars, F.,Ch.Hampden-Turner (1998), Riding the Waves of Culture. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London (pp. 37-

Hall, E.T., Hall M.R. (1990), Understanding cultural differences. Intercultural Press, Inc.; Yarmouth, Maine.

Lecture 3. Culture dimensions – theoretical concepts and practical applications

1. Societal culture and organizational culture in Poland

2. Culture and societal effectiveness.

3. The impact of societal culture on organizational business culture in the process of communication and negotiation. Polish organizations in transition.

Simulation

Readings: House, R.J.,Hanges, P.J.,Javidan, M.,Dorfman,P.W.,Gupta,V.(eds.),

(2004), Culture,Leadership, and Organizations. Sage: Thousand Oaks-

London-New Delphi.(pp.29-48, 74-90).

Lecture 4. Culture dimensions and its consequences : Performance Orientation,

Future Orientation.

1. The relationship between performance orientation as a societal dimension and

business practices.

2. Correlates of future orientation.

Case analysis

Readings: House, R.J.,Hanges, P.J.,Javidan, M.,Dorfman,P.W.,Gupta,V.(eds.),

(2004), Culture,Leadership, and Organizations. Sage: Thousand Oaks-

London-New Delphi.(pp. 235-342).

Lecture 5. Culture dimensions and its consequences: Gender Egalitarianism,

Assertiveness.

1. Gender Egalitarianism as a dimension of organizational culture.

2. Gender and communication process.

3. Assertiveness as a background dimension of organizational culture.

4. Assertiveness as a predictor of culturally endorsed communication style.

Case analysis

Readings: House, R.J.,Hanges, P.J.,Javidan, M.,Dorfman,P.W.,Gupta,V.(eds.),

(2004), Culture,Leadership, and Organizations. Sage: Thousand Oaks-

London-New Delphi.(pp.342-436).

Lecture 6. Culture dimensions and its consequences: Individual -Collectivism;

Power Distance.

1. Implications of Individualism-Collectivism dimension for organization.

2. Conflicting aspects of individualistic –collectivistic dichotomy.

3. Roots of power distance.

4. Power distance and culturally endorsed comunication strategies.

5. Intercultural conflicts.

Case analysis

Readings: House, R.J.,Hanges, P.J.,Javidan, M.,Dorfman,P.W.,Gupta,V.(eds.),

(2004), Culture,Leadership, and Organizations. Sage: Thousand Oaks-

London-New Delphi.(pp. 467-523).

Triandis, H.(2000), Culture and Conflict. International Journal of

Psychology.35,145-152

Lecture 7. (4 hours) Acculturation strategies among individuals and organizations.

1. Basic acculturation strategies foreigners use in Poland.

2. Culture shock of Polish executives cooperating with foreigners in Poland.

3. Re-entry culture shock.

Readings: Marx, E.(1999), Breaking through culture shock. Nicholas Brealey

Publishing: London.(pp.79-104) .

Hess, M.B., Linderman, P.,(2002),The expert expatriate. Nicholas

Brealey Publishing: London.pp.57-80, 149-181, 229-250.

Simulation

Lecture 8. ( 2 hours) Negotiating across cultural boundaries.

1. Non-verbal communication and its role in the negotiation process.

2. Stereotypes in negotiation process.

The final grade will be determined by a combination of report’s grade (70%) and its public presentation (30%). Grading of the report will be based on criteria such as clarity of structure, analytical depth, use of literature and other sources, originality and own contribution.