Cultural Diversity Barriers and Communication Competencies

Barriers to Effective Relationships: Case Analysis

The following case example explores a cultural diversity conflict that occurred in a workplace setting, with attention to barriers such as age, education level, socioeconomic background, and communication style. The case also reflects several of the national culture's assumptions about diversity, including the notion that difference is inherently problematic.

A woman who was 52 years old was terminated from a job she held at a rural area hospital. She was highly qualified for the position, having previously worked at administrative levels of hospital management, but had applied for a role that was far below her skills and capabilities. The reason she gave her supervisor was that she was writing a work of fiction and wanted a 9-to-5 schedule, a clearly defined set of task-to-function responsibilities, and no higher-level reporting duties.

The supervisor had her own considerations in evaluating the applicant. She explained that she herself was new to supervision and had never held any other position in the hospital beyond the line work she oversaw in the admitting department. She admitted to being unfamiliar with broader reporting responsibilities. However, she told the 52-year-old applicant that the previous supervisor had experienced significant trouble with the p.m. shift staff — all of whom were under 30 — and had ultimately been terminated. The supervisor felt that a "mature" individual might bring some stability and calm to that shift.

During the interview, the supervisor expressed that she needed someone who would not be a problematic employee, who would arrive on time and on assigned days, and whose performance might serve as a positive example to other employees. The 52-year-old reiterated that she did not want supervisory or oversight responsibilities. The supervisor assured her that would not be required — even though the position was on the p.m. shift without a supervisor present, the supervisor herself would handle staff oversight. That was precisely why she needed someone responsible who would follow the rules and show up consistently.

The supervisor hired the 52-year-old, who reported for scheduled training on the day shift. The training, conducted by the supervisor and another staff member, went well. Both were surprised at how quickly the new employee grasped the material. The supervisor commented to other staff members about the new hire's knowledge and rapid learning. The 52-year-old clarified that it was not a matter of learning quickly but rather that she was already familiar with the universal format of the software used across the industry — it was simply a matter of filling in the specific fields for this hospital's system.

Word spread through the informal organizational grapevine about the new hire's abilities. The phrase "photographic memory" circulated and eventually reached the new hire herself, who responded that it was not photographic memory at all — her prior knowledge of data elements required by all insurers had allowed her to understand the software's format very quickly.

The existing staff became immediately intimidated. The new hire held a four-year degree from an Ivy League university and had a vocabulary and manner of speaking that seemed unusual to the rural staff, most of whom were from the immediate area. Only one staff member was pursuing higher education, in nursing. The staff was further unsettled when the new hire's interactions with patients and customers elicited compliments. Rumors spread that she was actually a new manager who would take over from the supervisor — despite no such opening having been posted. The situation grew contentious, and the supervisor ultimately terminated the new hire on the grounds that her differences from the existing staff had made the work environment unmanageable. The supervisor made this decision even though the employee was a strong performer who arrived on time and on schedule, because the only other option would have been to terminate the entire p.m. shift — which was not feasible.

The first barrier was one rooted in education level. There is a marked difference between individuals who have completed higher education and those who have not — particularly in terms of exposure to other cultures, perspectives, and experiences. Placing a highly educated person into a work environment where colleagues lack those cultural or social reference points can create a poor fit. In this case, the barrier most at play was the cultural assumption that being different is inherently wrong. The contrast between the new hire and the staff was so extreme that it produced a dysfunctional work dynamic — though there was every indication the environment had been problematic before her arrival.

A second barrier involved the significant age gap. The new hire was 52 years old; the existing p.m. shift staff were all under 30. This difference meant that their social, academic, and life experiences were vastly divergent. There were few, if any, common interests or shared experiences to form a bond between the new hire and her younger coworkers. Her expertise and institutional knowledge in hospital administration made it impossible for the staff to feel on equal footing with her, generating resentment and fueling rumor-spreading.

Additionally, whether or not the staff members recognized it, their unwillingness to be empathetic toward the new hire — and their discomfort with her differences in age and background — was prejudicial in nature. This reflects the kind of implicit bias and prejudice that operates even when individuals do not consciously identify themselves as biased.

The supervisor's own behavior also constituted a barrier. Her reference to the new hire as a "mature" woman revealed age-based thinking that shaped the hiring decision from the outset. Whether or not the supervisor intended it as a compliment, treating the applicant differently — and holding different expectations of her — because of her age was discriminatory. The supervisor openly acknowledged that she had hired the woman partly for age-related reasons, and the subsequent termination can reasonably be understood as driven by those same age-related dynamics.

Identifying the Barriers in the Workplace Case

1. Personal reaction to the exercise: The exercise prompted close reflection on the cultural assumptions studied in the coursework. Developing a heightened awareness of those assumptions — and applying them to a real case — creates a new lens through which to examine workplace situations. One becomes more alert to the prejudices and other assumptions that shape people's experiences at work and in other settings.

2. What was learned about oneself: Prior to this course, awareness of these issues was limited. The exercise revealed that age discrimination carries a deeper meaning in the workplace than simply refusing to hire someone because of their age. It also reinforced that hiring decisions should be grounded in the match between job requirements, the work environment, and the skill set of the applicant. Hiring someone who is overqualified or over-educated for a position can create more problems than hiring someone who needs to be trained.

3. What was learned about others: Everyone operates according to their own agenda and pursues personal goals through the work they seek and perform. When those personal agendas conflict with organizational goals, adjustments must be made. However, employers should strive not to create dynamics in which an individual employee's life is dramatically altered because of a flawed hiring decision. The supervisor in this case was focused primarily on her own immediate need — finding a stable, mature presence on the p.m. shift — without fully considering the broader needs of the staff or the organization.

There are significant responsibilities that come with the power to affect another person's life in profound ways. Employment and the loss of employment are among the most consequential ways that one person can impact another. Great care and deliberate thought should therefore be exercised in both hiring and termination decisions.

4. Two ways to apply these lessons in daily life: First, in any role that involves hiring and firing, it is essential to proceed with caution and to prioritize the organization's needs. Matching the task to the person being hired is critical, and choosing not to hire someone who is significantly overqualified is a defensible and often wise decision, as the case here demonstrates.

Second, all people must be treated equally in employment and in public and social settings. Distinguishing individuals as separate or different on the basis of personal characteristics is wrong. At the same time, it is equally important to recognize that a person who is markedly different from their colleagues in terms of education, life stage, or experience may not be a good fit for certain environments. That does not mean such a person does not belong anywhere. Rather than terminating the new hire, the supervisor might have looked for a better fit for that employee elsewhere within the organization.

Cultural diversity is not limited to ethnicity. It is the product of all the social factors that exist within a society. Treating people of a certain age differently — whether with elevated expectations or dismissiveness — is as much a form of cultural bias as ethnicity-based prejudice. Age-related bias is a recognized and pervasive feature of American workplace culture.

The following section identifies key personal competencies necessary for maintaining effective communication and relationships in a culturally diverse work setting, drawn from the framework of fourteen personal competencies. Three competencies are identified for use with coworkers and three for use with clients, patients, students, or the broader community.

Personal Competencies for Culturally Diverse Settings

The first competency is respect for other individuals. Respecting colleagues means acknowledging their expertise and their limitations alike. Every person brings a different set of skills to the table, and each skill set represents a potential asset. Recognizing that another's contribution — however different from one's own — can add value to a shared goal or mission is the foundation of a productive team environment. Placing individuals with varied skill sets together, oriented toward a common mission, allows the whole to exceed the sum of its parts.

The second competency is communication, specifically keeping the lines of communication open. Effective communication is a two-way process, which requires all parties to remain open to receiving as well as sending information. It involves listening carefully, responding in ways that are genuinely responsive to what was said, and taking action when appropriate. Giving and receiving information with equal attentiveness is essential.

The third competency is cooperation — the recognition by all members of a team that the goals of the workplace are their primary shared focus, and that achieving those goals requires setting aside personal biases and emotions in service of the collective task.

The first competency is respect — an understanding of the individual dignity and well-being of every person and a commitment not to infringe upon that dignity. Social interactions should reflect an awareness of and regard for the humanity of the other individual.

The second competency is courtesy, which follows naturally from respect. Extending courtesy means acknowledging the other person — whether a customer, patient, or community member — as someone deserving of consideration by virtue of the relationship. This can be challenging when barriers such as language differences or cultural misunderstandings test one's patience. However, courtesy is a skill that improves with practice, and patience tends to follow.

The third competency is active listening, a dimension of communication particularly important in service-oriented relationships. The client, patient, or community member should be able to express their thoughts without interruption, and responses should be genuinely responsive to what that person has said. Dismissing, interrupting, or trivializing the ideas or concerns of another is incompatible with respectful communication. As research on active listening demonstrates, giving full attention to a speaker significantly improves understanding and trust in interpersonal exchanges.

1. Personal reaction to the exercise: These exercises are valuable because they prompt individuals to examine their own role in communication exchanges. They build heightened awareness of where one may fall short of effective two-way or group communication. Listening, responding to what is actually said, and acting on that information are practices that merit continual attention. Feedback — returning information to the individual or group — is a way of demonstrating that communication has been successful. Greater success in communicating in culturally diverse settings improves the overall quality of the work environment and strengthens relationships among colleagues.

2. What was learned about oneself: This exercise prompted recognition that biases exist even when they are not the focus of conscious attention. Bringing identified biases and prejudices into the open for examination creates genuine awareness of them, and it is almost automatic that this process prompts a personal self-assessment. The honest questions — "Am I blocking or facilitating communication in a diverse setting?" — tend to produce honest answers, even when those answers remain private. Continuous self-assessment of one's ability to communicate, respect, and cooperate across diverse settings is necessary for growth.

3. What was learned about others: All people have their own agendas, and they often place personal priorities ahead of the organization's agenda. The organization's goals are formally stated in mission statements; individual agendas are rarely so transparent. Understanding how cultural biases and prejudices affect the productivity of a work or social environment — and recognizing how they obstruct forward progress — is essential for effective leadership and collaboration.

4. Two ways to apply these lessons in daily life: The insights gained apply across settings — work, school, religious communities, and social environments. Being aware of cultural identities and differences, and reflecting honestly on how one has treated those differences in the past, is a constructive form of self-awareness. This awareness improves the quality of two-way exchanges and can make one more approachable. When body language and demeanor signal openness, others recognize that communication is possible, and that draws people in.

Returning to the two case examples developed in earlier worksheets, the following identifies which personal competencies would most improve the interactions described.