Outsourced: I to We

The motion picture, Outsourced (Pine, Hamilton, Dharker, & Jeffcoat, 2009), contains some excellent examples of the Bordas’ “Nine Principles of Multicultural Leadership” (Bordas, 2007, p.17).  In order to better understand some of the cultural differences encountered in the movie, Kwintessential.com provides a great primer prior to watching the movie ("India - Language, Culture, Customs and Etiquette", 2014).  Another good source is the book Kiss, bow, or shake hands: The bestselling guide to doing business in more than 60 countries (Morrison, & Conaway, 2006).

At one point in the film, Josh Hamilton’s character, Todd Anderson, comes to the realization that he should stop operating the Indian call-center like an American office and asks the employees “what would make a more positive work experience” (Pine, Hamilton, Dharker, & Jeffcoat, 2009).  This scene both exemplifies (in spirit) and then immediately contradicts (with good intentions) Bordas’ second principle of Multicultural Leadership: “I to We” (Bordas, 2007, p.18).  For the first time, Anderson’s thoughts begin to transform from individualism to a collective identity.  However, shortly thereafter as an incentive, Anderson offers company products as a reward for improving individual employee MPI numbers.  This is where he contradicts his altruistic intentions.  Here, we see Anderson unknowingly introducing a western concept of inter-office competition for individualistic gains.  According to Bordas, individualism and competition tend to fashion “a society in which people have a greater orientation toward their individual needs and desires than to the collective good” (p.23).  Kwintessential.com notes that Indian’s “typically define themselves by the groups to which they belong rather than by their status as individuals.  […] This group orientation stems from the close personal ties Indians maintain with their family, including the extended family” (2014).

Cited

Bordas, J. (2007). Salsa, soul, and spirit: Leadership for a multicultural age. San Francisco:            Berrett-Koehler.

India - Language, Culture, Customs and Etiquette. (2014, January 1). Retrieved December 9,       2014, from http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/india-country-   profile.html

Morrison, T., & Conaway, W. (2006). Kiss, bow, or shake hands: The bestselling guide to doing    business in more than 60 countries (2nd ed.). Avon, Mass.: Adams Media.

Pine, L., Hamilton, J., Dharker, A., & Jeffcoat, J. (2009). Outsourced. Toronto: Distributed in       Canada by Cinemavault.

Payne's Framework Under Fire

Ruby Payne’s rubric for assessing resources; the Krabill/Payne Resource Quotient (2004), is interesting.  However, I feel that employing multiple scoring items in each cell will cause problems for many people as some, but not all items in each cell will apply.  Therefore, people will need to choose which cell most applies to them.  If this is the case, then how does one weigh each item?  As an example, numbers 3 & 4 under the Integrity Resource read: 

3. Decisions are moral, ethical, and legal;   Avoids difficult issues;   Is responsible for self but blames others.
4. Decisions are moral, ethical, and legal; Tough issues are addressed;   Accepts responsibility for self and is accountable to others.

Here, we see that in each column, there are two items that differ.  Suppose someone feels that they “avoid difficult issues”, but also “accept responsibility for self and [are] accountable to others”.  Which is more accurate?  Which is weighted more in the assessment?  The answer may be that they are both equally accurate. 

To correct this issue, I would suggest changing only one item in each column in order to alleviate confusion.  Once the issues with the rubric have been corrected, I feel that Payne’s work may have some utility.  An additional section that the author may wish to include could instruct businesses as to how a program such as this would be implemented and sustained in an organization.

Paul Gorski’s paper, “Peddling Poverty for Profit: Elements of Oppression in Ruby Payne’s Framework” (2008) was an eye-opener.  Gorski pointed out something that I missed when reading Payne’s work: That Payne was self-published.  This is very interesting as any claims in her work may not have been examined. 

I found many of his Gorski’s points to be well thought-out and would be interested to hear Payne’s rebuttal.  Gorski noted that Payne’s research was performed through casual observations and had no statistical relevancy.  I would like to hear Payne address where and how she obtained the data she employed in her study.

Cited

Payne, R. (2004, January 1). The Role of Economic Diversity in Employee Retention, Promotion, and Training. Retrieved December 3, 2014.

Gorski, P. (2008, January 1). Peddling Poverty for Profit: Elements of Oppression in Ruby Payne’s Framework. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10665680701761854