Global Competence

REFLECTION​

​

My first thought in beginning this reflection was “Oh no. I am unsure of how many of my experiences will fit into the ‘global’ category.” One of the outstanding benefits of the MPS in Organizational Leadership program is its inherent applicability — the student is able to directly apply the curriculum to his or her current organizational context. I work in a small(ish) nonprofit in Oklahoma. Can I truly demonstrate that I have attained global competence? Upon reconsideration of the learning goal, however, I gained a better perspective. Global competence involves working with diverse perspectives, understanding the implications of issues affecting modern organizations, and operating effectively in situations that are not homogeneous. With my perspective shifted, I began to see global competence as a component of many assignments throughout the program.

 

The Facilitator’s Guide in MGT 614 was an assignment keenly focused on dealing with diverse perspectives. The thrust of the project centered on creating an effective training program, but the subject of the course that I developed relates directly to this learning goal. The subject of my course is conflict management, which I chose because I have experienced more than my share of workplace conflict over the years. The Facilitator’s Guide outlines the scope of the course, addressing the nature and types of conflict, strategies for handling conflict when it occurs, and understanding that conflict doesn’t have to be unhealthy. In fact, conflict is a natural outcome when people with different perspectives work together.

 

When dealt with appropriately, conflict can be a healthy benefit to an organization, driving change and innovation, fostering creative thinking, and making everyone feel heard. Ariel Avgar says that “integrating insights from diverse fields into fundamentally different aspects of central conflict and conflict management can be beneficial. The integration allows the application of a range of underlying assumptions and the use of methodological tools and approaches” (p. 283). I have worked in environments where consensus was held as the highest value, where everyone “being on the same page” was seen as progress. Wait, let me take more ownership than that — I have often valued consensus too highly and not appreciated the blessings of diversity and different perspectives. This assignment (and program) have drilled into me that leaning into diversity is the better way. Global competence is about embracing divergent opinions in order to thrive by incorporating the strengths of every member of the organization. I am slightly embarrassed that that lesson was not more easily learned, but perhaps the examination of the next artifact will illuminate some reasons for this deficiency.

 

Learning module 13 in IDS 802 confronted the students with the concept of cultural relativism. This philosophy states that no culture is “correct” or “incorrect” or owns an independent moral standard. Instead, as Rachels (2003) describes, “Every standard is culture-bound” (p. 18). Students were asked to craft a response to a prompt asking how two cultures with different perspectives on human rights could find common ground. The assignment came during a semester in which I was exiting religious employment and making a career change, and this clash of global values felt poignant and personal.

 

The bulk of my professional life has been spent in religious employment, having worked as a Christian pastor for 15 years. Like most religions, Christianity claims to have an independent standard by which to judge moral choices. So for most of my life, issues like the one addressed in the module were cut and dried with no debate. My source of morality was right and others were wrong. Yet this assignment came as I was exiting the constraints of that system and simultaneously engaging with classmates and coworkers who expressed a multitude of perspectives and values. I was quickly discovering that even when you are convinced you are “right”, that type of all-or-nothing approach is unhelpful at best and harmful at worst.

 

Whether cultural relativism is true or not, the fact remains that when cultures interact — whether the cultures are separated by half the globe, divided by political or religious ideology, or simply due to differences in personality or family origin — we must not assume the worst of one another, we must keep an open mind, and we must listen to one another. As Rachels describes so eloquently, “We can come to understand that our feelings are not necessarily perceptions of the truth…then we may be more open to discovering the truth, whatever that might be” (p. 31).

 

I am incredibly grateful for the role this program has played in opening my eyes to a bigger view of the world and giving me the tools to treat others with kindness, compassion, and dignity. I believe I have a better toolbox with which to operate more effectively in global situations.

 

The final artifact is a literature review I completed at the end of LDRS 670. I admit that I did not anticipate including this artifact in the global competence section. After all, it is an examination of literature related to personal development, which seems like an inherently individual-focused topic. If you read through the review, I address issues such as identity, self-image, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-concept. (That’s a lot of “selfs”!). What surprised me when reviewing the assignment, however, was how much of the literature was focused on relationships — emotional intelligence, vulnerability, and focus on others. This is why I chose to include the artifact in this section. The earliest theories of leadership focused on the qualities of the leader (trait theories, behavior theories), but our understanding has evolved as more scholarship has emerged that understands how leadership arises from relationships (Leader-Member Exchange Theory) and social systems (social network theories). We understand now that even personal development is connected to how we relate to and value one another.

 

In his classic book How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie (1981) quotes the psychologist Alfred Adler: “It is the individual who is not interested in his fellow men who has the greatest difficulties in life and provides the greatest injury to others. It is from among such individuals that all human failures spring” (p. 53). At the risk of simplifying global competence to its basest form, I would argue that this is the foundation of how effective modern organizations operate — optimizing the potential of every individual member while leading each one to value the perspective of the other and creating a culture of mutual understanding so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. They are not mutually exclusive values.

 

My organization finds itself in a precarious environment where dealing with diverse perspectives and competing ideologies is an everyday reality. We are a faith-based organization with roots in a Christian denomination. That denominational conference is currently experiencing a split over doctrinal and moral issues. We also have contracts with the state to fund and operate several of our programs, so are obliged to follow their guidelines for inclusion and non-discrimination. All of these parties want to join us in helping children and families in crisis, but they have differing opinions on how to accomplish that goal and different values that undergird that desire. They are sometimes deeply distrustful of one another, even though they work to support our mission together.

 

Part of my job is communicating and deepening relationships with each of these partners. I often field questions about issues that divide these partners, who often are seeking for us to “take their side” in some way. The lessons I have learned about global competence have been extremely helpful in these situations. My goal is never to put our organization in the middle of a divisive issue, but instead to make each partner feel heard and valued, even when my own perspectives are in conflict with theirs. I am able (at least most of the time) to bring the focus back to the mission of bringing help and hope to people in crisis, emphasizing that we can all join together to accomplish this amazing goal. These contentious conversations are part of our reality for the foreseeable future, but I am confident that we can all continue to work together for the benefit of our community.

 

I believe my artifacts show significant growth in this area during my time in this program, but I still have much growth ahead of me. I have committed to completing a continuing education unit in 2023 on inherent bias, which will continue my journey of self-discovery and deepen my understanding of others. I have also committed to participate in my organization’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion task force, which will allow me to work with others to help our organization be effective in the global environment.