Fluent Essays

need help with this project will provide materials and also need a turnitin report as well plus rewrites if needed. 1 FAQ for Employees Landing page and soft login option on workhealthlife.com This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document provides more information about the implementation of a new landing page and soft login option on our Employee and Family Assistance Program (EFAP) website, workhealthlife.com. Please review this FAQ document to learn more. Question: Where and when will users see the landing page? Answer: The landing page will be displayed across all site versions (Canada (EN, FR), US, UK, SP) of our workhealthlife.com site. Users will see the landing page when they access the site from various urls, including for example: workhealthlife.com, travailsantevie.com, workhealthlife.com/us, and workhealthlife.com/MyEAP. On the landing page, users will have four options to enter the site: 1) New users can register for an account 2) Returning users can login using their existing, unique credentials; this is called a hard login 3) New or returning users can identify their organization; this is called a soft login 4) New or returning users can browse as guest The landing page and soft login option will go live on Tuesday September 26, 2017. Question: What is a hard vs. soft login? Answer: Hard login refers to a user entering their unique credentials to enter the site. On our site, it is username (email address) and unique password. Soft login refers to the user entering their organization name to enter the site and does not require unique user credentials to enter the site. A soft login will allow the user to see the specific instance of workhealthlife.com that is set up for that organization. Question: What if a user is in crisis? Answer: Anyone in crisis should call 911 or the CAC. The CAC phone number will be displayed on the landing page and throughout workhealthlife.com. Question: If a user enters the site with soft login, what will they see and have access to? Answer: Users that soft login will enjoy a very similar experience to that of a hard login. When applicable, they will see their organization’s contracted services and tools available, company logos, dedicated EFAP phone numbers, and any other configurations that are 2 specific to their organization, including the online tools buttons (Online Access, First Chat, and E-Counselling) displayed (or not) in the right rail area. If they wish to use their active Online Programs under My Activity or view the Manager Area, they must complete a hard login. When applicable, if they wish to use the online tools (First Chat or Online Access), they can click and start to use – there is no hard login required – as the individual’s information is collected once inside the tools. If they wish to use E-Counselling, they will be redirected to the E-Counselling Portal and use their E-Counselling credentials to login there. Please note: A case for E-Counselling must first be booked via the EFAP before a user can participate in the program. Question: Why are we implementing a landing page and soft login option? Answer: We’ve been listening to your feedback; the new landing page and soft login option will make it easier and faster for users to see the details of the EFAP that is offered to them and their family, including specific services available and any dedicated EFAP phone numbers. Question: Will a user see our dedicated EFAP phone number on the landing page? Answer: No. A user needs to either register or enter the site with a hard or soft login to see any customizations for your organization, including dedicated EFAP phone numbers. If they select guest view, they will not see any customizations. Question: What if my organization has a custom workhealthlife.com url? Answer: If you usually access the EAP website through a custom url (e.g. workhealthlife.com/Orgnamehere), you will skip the landing page as your organization is already identified in the url. Same as today, you will be taken straight to your specific instance of the site. Question: Will there be any changes to the urls that I use today? Answer: No. All urls used today, and found on promotional materials, social media, client intranet sites, etc… will remain the same. Users will simply encounter the landing page when they arrive on the site beginning September 26, 2017. 3 Question: Are there changes to the registration or hard login process end-users know today? Answer: No. The existing account registration and hard login process (entering a username and unique password to access the site) remains the same as today. Users will not have to re-register or create new hard login credentials. The soft login option will now allow users to gain site entry by simply identifying their organization. Question: Is there a browse as guest option? Answer: Yes. If a user chooses not to register, login (hard or soft), they can browse as a guest. Question: What if I have additional questions? Answer: Please send along any questions to your HR Representative or call the EFAP. INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE USA: 6203 Rosebay Drive Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 +1 503-268-1025 Italy: Via Francesco Arese 16, 20159 Milano +39 02 66 800 486 [email protected] BECOMING INTERCULTURALLY COMPETENT Final Draft 1/8/04: Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J.S. Wurzel (Ed.) Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education. Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation. Milton J. Bennett, Ph.D. Executive Director, The Intercultural Development Research Institute Director, The Intercultural Communication Institute Portland, Oregon USA www.intercultural.org Discovering the Sequence of Development After years of observing all kinds of people dealing (or not) with cross-cultural situations, I decided to try to make sense of what was happening to them. I wanted to explain why some people seemed to get a lot better at communicating across cultural boundaries while other people didn’t improve at all, and I thought that if I were able to explain why this happened, trainers and educators could do a better job of preparing people for cross-cultural encounters. The result of this work was the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) (M. Bennett, 1986, 1993; J. Bennett & M. Bennett, 2003, 2004). As people became more interculturally competent it seemed that there was a major change in the quality of their experience, which I called the move from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. I used the term “ethnocentrism” to refer to the experience of one’s own culture as “central to reality.” By this I mean that the beliefs and behaviors that people receive in their primary socialization are unquestioned; they are experienced as “just the way things are.” I coined the term “ethnorelativism” to mean the opposite of ethnocentrism–the experience of one’s own beliefs and behaviors as just one organization of reality among many viable possibilities. There also seemed be six distinct kinds of experience spread across the continuum from ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism. The most ethnocentric experience was named the Denial of cultural difference, followed by the Defense against cultural difference. In the middle of the continuum the Minimization of cultural difference seemed to be a transition from the more virulent forms of ethnocentrism to a more benign form, leading to the ethnorelative Acceptance of cultural difference. At the heart of ethnorelativism was Adaptation to cultural difference, followed in some cases by the Integration of cultural difference into identity. The sequence of these experiences became the “stages” of the DMIS. In general, the more ethnocentric orientations can be seen as ways of avoiding cultural difference, either by denying its existence, by raising defenses against it, or by minimizing its importance. The more ethnorelative worldviews are ways of seeking cultural difference, either by accepting its importance, by adapting perspective to take it into account, or by integrating the whole concept into a definition of identity. The Stages of Development Figure 1 Denial Defense Minimization Acceptance Adaptation Integration ETHNOCENTRISM ETHNORELATIVISM The Ethnocentric Stages of Development As illustrated in Figure 1, the first three DMIS orientations are conceptualized as more ethnocentric, meaning that the tenants of one’s own culture are experienced as central to reality in some way. The default condition of a typical, monocultural primary socialization is Denial of cultural difference. This is the state in which one’s own culture is experienced as the only real one–that is, that the patterns of beliefs, behaviors, and values that constitute a culture are experienced as unquestionably real or true. Other cultures are either not noticed at all, or they are construed in rather vague ways. As a result, cultural difference is either not experienced at all, or it is experienced as associated with a kind of undifferentiated other such as “foreigner” or “immigrant.” In extreme cases, the people of one’s own culture may be perceived to be the only real “humans” and other people viewed as simpler forms in the environment to be tolerated, exploited, or eliminated as necessary. People with a Denial worldview generally are disinterested in cultural difference even when it is brought to their attention, although they may act aggressively to avoid or eliminate a difference if it impinges on them. For example, many dominant-culture U.S. Americans were not aware of the large numbers of Latinos who shared their communities until the last census figures were released. In some cases in which I have consulted, a sudden increase in the Latino population has been met with angry bewilderment from Anglos, who ask, “How could such a thing have happened to our community?” And of course, U.S. Americans are familiar with the phenomenon of “white flight”–the avoidance reaction of dominant-culture European Americans to the introduction of African Americans or other people of color to previously all-white neighborhoods. I would like to stress that Denial is not particularly American. In my observation, a Denial worldview in Germans, Italians, or Japanese yields a similar reaction to immigrants. Nor is this worldview restricted to dominant-culture folks in American or other societies. Even if they are forced by economic necessity into interaction with the dominant culture, people of non-dominant groups with a Denial worldview remain unable to recognize the cultural dimension of the interaction. For instance, as many African Americans as European Americans seem to be surprised at cultural differences between these groups in communication style and nonverbal behavior. This is because the Denial worldview in both groups only allows for observations within the familiar categories of “race” and associated constructs of deserved or undeserved inequities in political and economic power. The tendency to use familiar but often simplistic or fallacious categories of race and ethnicity seems also to characterize the Denial form of dominant/non-dominant interaction in other societies. Another way a Denial worldview shows up is as an inability (and disinterest) in differentiating national cultures. For instance, U.S. Americans at this stage often cannot tell the difference between Chinese and Japanese cultures, or to distinguish among Gulf State Arabs (e.g. Kuwaitis), Fertile Crescent Arabs (e.g. Syrians), and Persians (in Iran). While educated Europeans or Asians are generally more knowledgeable than U.S. Americans about geopolitical issues, at Denial they seem just as likely to neglect these kinds of cultural differences. For example, Asian sojourners seem to be at least as inclined as Americans to maintain the exclusive company of their compatriots, and many Europeans seem oblivious to the cultural factors that frequently underlie political differences. The main issue to be resolved at Denial is the tendency to avoid noticing or confronting cultural difference. People here need to attend to the simple existence of other cultures, both globally and domestically. Those who are facilitating this initial recognition (teachers, trainers, friends) need to understand that Denial is not a refusal to “confront the facts.” It is instead an inability to make the perceptual distinctions that allow cultural facts to be recognized. When facilitators fail to understand the experience of Denial, they are likely to present cultural information in too-complex ways and to become impatient at the aggressive ignorance often displayed at this stage. The resolution of Denial issues allows the creation of simple categories for particular cultures, which sets up the conditions for the experience of Defense. Defense against cultural difference is the state in which one’s own culture (or an adopted culture) is experienced as the only viable one –the most “evolved” form of civilization, or at least the only good way to live. People at Defense have become more adept at discriminating difference, so they experience cultural differences as more real than do people at Denial. But the Defense worldview structure is not sufficiently complex to generate an equally “human” experience of the other. While the cultural differences experienced by people with a Defense perspective are stereotypical, they nevertheless seem real by comparison to the Denial condition. Consequently, people at Defense are more openly threatened by cultural differences than are people in a state of Denial. The world is organized into “us and them,” where one’s own culture is superior and other cultures are inferior. People of dominant cultures are likely to experience Defense as an attack on their values (often perceived by others as privileges). They may complain that immigrants or other minorities are “taking our jobs.” They are likely to have many negative stereotypes of “them,” including a full stock of jokes emphasizing the assumed failings of other cultures. In its benign form, Defense may be expressed by “helping” non-dominant group members to succeed by bringing them into the assumedly superior dominant culture. The politically correct descriptions of some mentoring programs in corporations may mask this Defense orientation. In its more virulent form, Defense is likely to be expressed by membership in groups that exclude cultural difference or in outright attacks people of other cultures. In the U.S., the Ku Klux Klan and its imitators are obvious examples of the latter. People of non-dominant cultures are more likely to experience Defense as discovering and solidifying a separate cultural identity in contrast to the dominant group (cf., Banks, 1988; Parham, 1989). Cross (1995) argues that such a stage is necessary in the development of non-dominant ethnic identity to counteract the efforts of the dominant group to impose their culture on all members of a society. Like that of dominant group members, this Defense experience is accompanied by positive stereotyping of one’s own culture and negative stereotyping of other cultures. In the international domain, Defense is clearly the predominant orientation of “nation-building.” Like mentoring, such efforts are likely implicit (and sometimes even explicit) attempts to export the builders’ assumedly superior cultural values. The polarized worldview is also evident in the statement “you’re either with us or against us,” uttered by a variety of world leaders. Other incidents of a culturally polarized worldview are evident in the complaints of travelers about unfamiliar food and similar failures of other cultures to not be “like us.” A variation on Defense is Reversal, where an adopted culture is experienced as superior to the culture of one’s primary socialization (“going native,” or “passing”). Reversal is like Defense in that it maintains a polarized, “us and them” worldview. It is unlike Defense in that it does not maintain the other culture as a threat. Reversal is common among long-term sojourners such as Peace Corps Volunteers, missionaries, corporate expatriates, and exchange students. Reversal may masquerade as cultural sensitivity, since it provides a positive experience of a different culture along with seemingly analytical criticisms of one’s own culture. However, the positive experience of the other culture is at an unsophisticated stereotypical level, and the criticism of one’s own culture is usually an internalization of others’ negative stereotypes. Reversal in domestic multicultural relations is an interesting and complicated phenomenon. It appears that some people of the dominant culture take on the cause of non-dominant cultures in stereotypical ways. For instance, in the U.S. a white person of European American ethnicity may become a rabid proponent of African American issues. While it is not necessarily ethnocentric for someone to identify with the plight of historically oppressed people, in this hypothetical case the European American person sees all black people as saintly martyrs and all white people (including herself before the conversion) as brutal oppressors. By changing the poles of the polarized worldview, this person has not changed here essentially unsophisticated experience of cultural difference. The resolution of Defense issues involves recognizing the common humanity of people of other cultures. Techniques such as “ropes courses” or other experiences that create mutual dependence independent of gender or race can be effective for this purpose. Facilitators who try to correct the stereotypes of people in Defense are likely to fall prey to the polarized worldview themselves, becoming yet another example of the evils of multiculturalism or globalization. The need here is to establish commonality, not to introduce more sophisticated understanding of difference. When this resolution is accomplished, the stage is set for a move into Minimization. Minimization of cultural difference is the state in which elements of one’s own cultural worldview are experienced as universal. The threat associated with cultural differences experienced in Defense is neutralized by subsuming the differences into familiar categories. For instance, cultural differences may be subordinated to the overwhelming similarity of people’s biological nature (physical universalism). The experience of similarity of natural physical processes may then be generalized to other assumedly natural phenomena such as needs and motivations. The assumption that typologies (personality, learning style, etc) apply equally well in all cultures is an example of Minimization. The experience of similarity might also be experienced in the assumed cross- cultural applicability of certain religious, economic, political, or philosophical concepts (transcendent universalism). For instance, the religious assumptions that everyone in the world is a child of God or that everyone has karma are examples of Minimization. Note that it is not ethnocentric to have a religious belief; however, it is ethnocentric to assume that people in other cultures either do or would if they could share your belief. Similarly, the assumption that people of all cultures would like to live in a democratic society (or in a benevolent dictatorship) if they only could is ethnocentric by this definition. Because these “universal absolutes” obscure deep cultural differences, other cultures may be trivialized or romanticized at Minimization. People at Minimization expect similarities, and they may become insistent about correcting others’ behavior to match their expectations. Many exchange students have reported to me that their host families, despite their kindness, generosity, and sincere curiosity about different customs, do not really want their students to have different basic values from themselves. I have observed that many host families are at Minimization. The families are motivated by sharing the host country’s way of life with the student, on the assumption that of course the student will appreciate that way of life once he or she sees what it is. If the student is insufficiently appreciative, it threatens the Minimization assumption that all everyone really wants to be “like us.” This operation of Minimization is far more dangerous, of course, when the appreciation of our way of life is being promoted by armed “nation-builders.” Particularly for people of dominant cultures, Minimization tends to mask recognition of their own culture (ethnicity) and the institutional privilege it affords its members. Because people at this stage no longer experience others in a polarized way, they tend to overestimate their racial and ethnic appreciation. While they may be relatively tolerant, people at Minimization are unable to appreciate other cultures because they cannot see their own culture clearly. If, for instance, I cannot see that my communication style is a cultural pattern, I think that everyone does (or would if they could) use the same style. Consequently, I judge the failure to use my style as a lack of social skill or as a choice to be “alternative.” Either of these judgments misses the point that other people may be naturally using a culturally different style. For people of non-dominant cultures, a Minimization worldview involves the acceptance of something like the “melting pot” idea. It generally is a position that is perceived and perhaps intended as a political statement. In any case, the experience is one that minimizes the cultural differences between the dominant and non-dominant groups in such a way that the same universal standard (e.g. university entrance requirements) can be applied to all the groups without bias. When the result of such an application of standard yields group differences, the explanation by both dominant and non-dominant Minimizers is that the groups actually differ in their intelligence, skills, or preparation. The idea that all standards are necessarily constrained by cultural context does not occur in Minimization. Current research with the Intercultural Development Inventory™, an instrument that assesses the experience of cultural difference in terms of the DMIS, has shown that Minimization is a kind of transition state between the constellation of Denial/Defense and the constellation Acceptance/Adaptation (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). The experience of Minimization is theoretically ethnocentric in that it takes one’s own cultural patterns as central to an assumed universal reality. In other words, the experience is that all people are essentially similar in ways that explainable by my own cultural beliefs. However, the experience also includes the ability to perceive some cultural differences in largely non-stereotypical ways and to recognize the essential humanness of others. The missing piece in Minimization, and the issue that needs to be resolved to move into ethnorelativism, is the recognition of your own culture (cultural self- awareness). In more general terms, this is the ability to experience culture as a context. Only when you see that all your beliefs, behaviors, and values are at least influenced by the particular context in which you were socialized can you fully imagine alternatives to them. Facilitators at this stage need to stress the development of cultural self-awareness in contrast to other cultures before they move into too much detail about the other cultures. This is the time to introduce the basic culture-general frameworks of intercultural communication (e.g. Bennett, 1998b). The Ethnorelative Stages of Development The second three DMIS orientations are defined as more ethnorelative, meaning that one’s own culture is experienced in the context of other cultures. Acceptance of cultural difference is the state in which one’s own culture is experienced as just one of a number of equally complex worldviews. By discriminating differences among cultures (including one’s own), and by constructing a kind of self-reflexive perspective, people with this worldview are able to experience others as different from themselves, but equally human. People at Acceptance can construct culture-general categories that allow them to generate a range of relevant cultural contrasts among many cultures. Thus, they are not necessarily experts in one or more cultures (although they might also be that); rather, they are adept at identifying how cultural differences in general operate in a wide range of human interactions. In this last regard, is important to remember that the DMIS is not a model of knowledge, attitude, or skills. So, the fact that you are knowledgeable about a culture may or may not be associated with the ethnorelative experience of Acceptance. I know a lot of people who are knowledgeable about Japanese hospitality rituals or German status relationships who do not seem to have any general feeling for those cultures. I suspect it is because, despite their specific knowledge, these people are not able to experience the cultural worldviews of which those behaviors are a part. I would hypothesize that people need to have a “critical mass” of information about another culture in order to apprehend the worldview, and that even that amount of information is useless unless basic Minimization issues have been resolved first; that is, that they are “ready” to hear the information. People may have some of the linguistic or behavioral skills of another culture without any feeling for how to use those skills in culturally appropriate ways – a condition that I have coined being a “fluent fool.” (Bennett, 1997). Perhaps people acquired the abilities from short sojourns or training programs. In any case, like knowledge, the skills are not very useful unless they are accompanied by an Acceptance/Adaptation worldview. Most commonly, people might have positive attitudes toward another culture without having the ability to experience the other culture with much depth. I have observed this to be typical of efforts to appear cosmopolitan or politically correct. Acceptance does not mean agreement. It is naïve to think that intercultural sensitivity and competence is always associated with liking other cultures or agreeing with their values or ways of life. In fact, the uncritical agreement with other cultures is more characteristic of the ethnocentric condition of Reversal, particularly if it is accompanied by a critical view of your own culture. Some cultural differences may be judged negatively –but the judgment is not ethnocentric unless it is associated with simplification, or withholding equal humanity. This last point brings up the major issue to be resolved at Acceptance: “value relativity.” To accept the relativity of values to cultural context (and thus to attain the potential to experience the world as organized by different values), you need to figure out how to maintain ethical commitment in the face of such relativity (cf. Perry, 1970). This is a difficult matter, as illustrated in the following example. A student recently confided in me her concern that she was being ethnocentric in her support of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. I replied that it was possible that she was, but it was also possible that she was making an ethnorelative judgment. The test is whether she was according full humanity to the Iraqis that she felt should be forcibly dealt with. So I asked “What is good about Sadam Hussein from some Iraqi perspectives?” She said, “nothing is good–he is a monster and all Iraqis think so except some evil people who are profiting from his cruelty.” Leaving aside the history of U.S. profits from Iraq, I replied that her concerns were justified–she was being ethnocentric. She was imposing her values on others by making the Minimization assumption that her values were the most real. Further, she was denying equal humanity to Sadam Hussein and Iraqis who supported him by labeling them “monsters” and “evil.” A more ethnorelative approach to the Iraq situation would have been to recognize that Sadam Hussein is a complex human being whose behavior, while “good” in some Arab contexts because it stands up to the Americans or expresses Arab pride, is nevertheless “bad” in the context of the current world consensus about the use of violence and intimidation in domestic governance. The question then is are you committed to stopping the bad behavior? Is Sadam’s behavior sufficiently different from other world leaders’ to allow a non-hypocritical intervention? Is the need for intervention important enough to outweigh the principle of national sovereignty? Are the consequences of interference better than the consequences of not interfering? The answer to all these questions could be “yes.” I believe that had my student considered these and other such questions, and had she then accorded Hussein and other Iraqis a complexity of motive similar to her own, then she could have supported the U.S. invasion in an ethnorelative way. Of course, a different person might make the same considerations and conclude that the invasion was not supportable. But both positions would be ethnorelative. Resolution of the issue of value relativity and commitment allows you to take the perspective of another culture without losing your own perspective. This is the crux of the next stage. Adaptation to cultural difference is the state in which the experience of another culture yields perception and behavior appropriate to that culture. One’s worldview is expanded to include relevant constructs from other cultural worldviews. People at Adaptation can engage in empathy –the ability to take perspective or shift frame of reference vis-à-vis other cultures. This shift is not merely cognitive; it is a change in the organization of lived experience, which necessarily includes affect and behavior. Thus, people at Adaptation are able to express their alternative cultural experience in culturally appropriate feelings and behavior. If the process of frame shifting is deepened and habitualized, it becomes the basis of biculturality or multiculturality. Adaptation is not assimilation. The term “assimilation” is understood by many immigrants and people of non-dominant groups to refer to something like the “melting pot.” This idea of assimilation is that you should give up who you were before and take on the worldview of your host, or dominant culture. The concept of adaptation offers an alternative to assimilation. Adaptation involves the extension of your repertoire of beliefs and behavior, not a substitution of one set for another. So you don’t need to lose your primary cultural identity to operate effectively in a different cultural context. In domestic multicultural contexts, adaptation leads to mutual adjustment. In other words, people of both dominant and non-dominant groups are equally inclined to adapt their behavior to one another. Of course, the dominant group has the power to demand that only the non-dominant group adjust. But dominant-culture people who experience cultural difference in this more ethnorelative way are less likely to invoke that power. Instead, they are curious about cultural difference and actually eager to experience other cultures. For those reasons, never mind fairness, they seek the other cultural perspectives represented in groups and attempt to learn how to act in ways that are to some extent appropriate in those cultural contexts. They may also be motivated by fairness, but unlike some others who may sincerely believe in equity while lacking the ability to act equitably, these people have the worldview structure to support the kind of mutual cultural adaptation that actually implements equity. Adaptation as defined here has long been the goal of intercultural communication training for international sojourners. Programs for exchange students, development workers, expatriates, and others have stressed the acquisition of culturally appropriate behavior. As we have seen, however, such behavior may only be “foolish” in its implementation without an appropriate worldview structure to support it. The DMIS suggests that a lot of attention should go to preparing trainees to experience another culture before trying to train any particular behavior. The major issue to be resolved at Adaptation is that of “authenticity.” How is it possible to perceive and behave in culturally different ways and still “be yourself?” The answer seems to lie in defining yourself more broadly – in expanding the repertoire of perception and behavior that is “yours.” So, you might be to some extent German critical, Japanese indirect, Italian ironic and African American personal, in addition to your primary European American male explicit style. Insofar as each of these behaviors emerged from a feeling for the various cultures, they would all be authentically you (Bennett & Castiglioni, 2004). The resolution of authenticity at Adaptation may establish the condition of the last stage of development. However, movement to the last stage does not represent a significant improvement in intercultural competence. Rather, it describes a fundamental shift in one’s definition of cultural identity. Integration of cultural difference is the state in which one’s experience of self is expanded to include the movement in and out of different cultural worldviews. Here, people are dealing with issues related to their own … Press Release Guide What Is a Press Release? A press release is a formal announcement that highlights something new or significant about a business, event, or product. Main Components 1. Headline a. Make the headline short and engaging b. It should include the subject of the Press Release 2. Opening sentence a. This should be straightforward—don’t keep the reader guessing about what you are going to say b. Make your audience care! 3. Body paragraphs a. Convey more detailed information related to subject and headline b. Be sure to make this relevant to your audience! c. Try to avoid being too technical, especially in the use of jargon 4. Contact information a. Include your first and last name, typically Examples The article Press Release Examples provides examples of press releases from major corporations. References Johnson, David E. “Press Release or Media Pitch?” Alister & Paine, 22 Sept. 2014. ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN =126785367&site=eds-live&scope=site Pearson, Elizabeth. “Selling a Story: How to Write a Successful Press Release.” CAPjournal, No.21, Dec. 2016. ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN =120614634&site=eds-live&scope=site Wynne, Robert. “How to Write a Press Release.” Forbes, 13 June 2016. www.forbes.com/sites/robertwynne/2016/06/13/how-to-write-a-press- release/#1dd58b7e3b93 https://www.presspage.com/press-release-examples Competency In this project, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following competency: · Create global and intercultural communications for a variety of purposes and targeted audiences Scenario As an associate at Strategic Communications, a global public relations (PR) firm, you have been tasked with a tricky messaging campaign. Boundless Footwear, the well-known shoe company, has been outed publicly in regards to its treatment of international workers. A blog focusing on workforce relations posted a story with multiple anonymous sources from Boundless Footwear claiming employees were forced to work extra shifts to meet the increase of product manufacturing. In addition, the workers were not allowed to take personal days off around an important culturally observed holiday because there was no additional work coverage. Finally, some workers mentioned insulting and disparaging remarks from management regarding their diversity because they were not able to meet the longer work days. Boundless Footwear executives are asking Strategic Communications to create a campaign that manages this particular crisis; also, Strategic Communications is being asked to develop a generic push for buying its shoes. You will choose which audiences should be targeted for this campaign. Additionally, your manager would like the campaign to include a communication plan to Boundless Footwear that explains how globalization bears on the campaign, as well as how technological advances help or hinder the situation. Boundless Footwear will begin selling its shoes worldwide through a series of international partnerships and the release of a new website. The company anticipates doubling the number of shoes sold over the first 18 months of the release. Products are expected to be ready within 45 days. Company Overview Boundless Footwear is a regional footwear company manufacturing athletic shoes for the past 10 years. Over that time, the company has seen a steady increase in sales within the region, including double-digit increases the last three years. The continued success has prompted the company to move to global distribution of its shoes. The company has manufacturing and distribution centers in 10 different countries throughout southeast Asia and the Pacific Rim. Boundless Footwear employees have recently come forward noting their concerns regarding the treatment of employees, including recognition of beliefs, family commitments, and availability to work extra shifts despite not having any regulatory standards citing the number of hours worked to meet production demands. Workforce Controversy Boundless Footwear’s workforce consists of workers from 10 different countries with up to five different languages spoken among the employees. Employee classifications range from administration to manufacturing operators. Anonymous reports emerging online in blogs and social media posts, as well as an internal company-culture survey, have demonstrated trends of concern related to workforce treatment around the number of hours worked, and lack of awareness of cultural beliefs and priorities because employees were required to work extra days and longer hours that forced the forfeiture of recent holidays while sacrificing time with family. Of the survey respondents, 50\% felt the work environment had become too stressful. One employee claimed he was let go from his position because he had taken a day off during a busy work week to observe an important holiday in his culture. Workers have increased the number of hours they work by as much as 50\% some weeks to meet the supply and demand of global product release. The company does not have established policies on overtime. American Concerns Boundless Footwear anticipates a successful global launch of its shoes based on demand from early product orders. The United States has the most pre-order requests, but the recent controversy regarding workforce claims of treatment and extended working hours has some U.S.-based companies reconsidering selling Boundless Footwear products. Some companies fear that selling these shoes will give the perception they were a contributing cause to the workforce claims. Boundless Footwear is also in need of assistance from Strategic Communications to assure the U.S. buyers that the workforce claims are under control and to establish faith in the global product launch. Regulatory Communication Boundless Footwear wants the Strategic Communication press release to focus on the small to midsize U.S. businesses. The press release must consider regulatory telecommunication rules from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Review the FCC’s section, Compliance Guides for Small Businesses, and identify any regulatory specifications you need to follow for the press release. You may choose to add any information applicable to Boundless Footwears executive team in the FAQ document as necessary. Directions The pending global release of the Boundless Footwear products and recent negative media noting the unfair treatment of international workers make this communication plan a sensitive, yet timely, one. Communication Plan, Parts I and II · Part I: Press Release: The press release should address the U.S. small businesses’ concerns about being associated with the poor treatment of workers and about selling such a company’s products. The audience for the press release should focus on the customers (U.S.-based small businesses), providing them with an update on the worker accusations and cross-promoting the value of Boundless Footwear shoes. · Apply principles of intercultural competence to created communication. Include the following in your response: · Describe how Boundless Footwear can better address globalization and localization of workforce conditions, given its past errors · Analyze globalization’s effect on communication in the context of the scenario. Include the following in your response: · As global communication and technology continue to grow, how can the company utilize technology such as digital media to reach diverse audiences? · How can understanding cultural diversity improve organizational communications in a global setting? · What specific strategies will be beneficial in increasing sensitivity to employee diversity and cultural preferences? Consider technology and training approaches, as well as possible company policy revisions. · Discuss regulatory specifications from relevant institutions for informing the company’s approach to global and intercultural communications. Include the following in your response: · What specific regulatory specifications and impacts shape regulation related to intercultural communication, media laws, and social media messages? · Which regulatory telecommunication bodies impact company policy, and what is the extent of government impact regarding the release of organizational communication? · Part II: Global Product FAQ Release: The FAQ document should prepare Boundless Footwear executives with talking points related to the employee accusations. This is an internal document and not meant for external release. Your Global Product FAQ Release document should address working conditions to meet global-product-release supply and demand. You have been provided with a template that includes pre-populated questions. · Identify audiences appropriate for consumption of communication based on intercultural principles. Include the following in your response: · What is an audience-appropriate message framework addressing the treatment of workers and working conditions to meet global-product-release supply and demand? · When communicating with diverse internal audiences (such as employees), how should the company use intercultural principles to communicate effectively? · When communicating with diverse external audiences (such as the public), how should the company use intercultural principles to communicate effectively? · Describe communication impacts of global and intercultural communication, specifically detailing implications of advances in communication technology. Include the following: · What impacts do reliability and technology tools, such as blogging and social media, have on organizational communication and processes related to public perception of the treatment of workers? · What is the extent of applicable regulatory communication agency policies in FAQ responses (i.e., if multiple answers need to be developed for a single question to meet a regional governance communication policy)? · How does technology, such as social media and social networking, impact communication with diverse audiences? What to Submit Every project has a deliverable or deliverables, which are the files that must be submitted before your project can be assessed. For this project, you must submit the following: Your two-part communication plan should include the following components: 1. Press Release (External) The press release should be approximately 1 page in length. 2. Global Product FAQ Release (Internal) Use the Global Product FAQ Release template and write a response for each question. Supporting Materials The following resources may help support your work on the project: Citation Help Need help citing your sources? Use the CfA Citation Guide and Citation Maker. Document:  Press Release Guide Document:  FAQ Document Format and Components Press ReleaseWhich Resources Can Help?Applies principles of intercultural competence to created communication for addressing globalization and localization of workforce conditions☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Communicating With Diverse Audiences Analyzes globalization’s effect on communication, and includes use of technology to reach diverse audiences and highlight cultural diversity understanding for improving organizational communications☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Global Communication Discusses regulatory specifications from relevant institutions, considering their impact on intercultural communication, media laws, and social media messages, as well as company policy☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Regulatory Entities Global Product FAQ ReleaseWhich Resources Can Help? Identifies audiences appropriate for consumption of communication based on intercultural principles, including approaches for communicating with diverse internal and external audiences (such as employees), and how the company should use intercultural principles to communicate effectively☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Global Media Messaging Describes communication impacts of global and intercultural communication, specifically detailing implications of advances in communication technology, and includes impacts of technology tools on diverse organizational communication and processes related to public perception of the treatment of workers☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Unit Resources: Global Media Messaging GeneralWhich Resources Can Help?Clearly conveys meaning with correct grammar, sentence structure, and spelling; shows understanding of audience and purpose☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Academic Support Lists sources where needed using citation methods with no major errors☐ Mastered ☐ Not Yet · Citation Help HOME ›COUNTRY COMPARISON COUNTRY COMPARISON Select one or several countries/regions in the menu below to see the values for the 6 dimensions. Go further, discover our cultural survey tool, the Culture Compass™ or join our open programme Introduction to Cross-Cultural Management or download the App (Google Play, App store). · ×United States · * estimated · United States WHAT ABOUT THE USA? To compare your personal preferences to the scores of a country of your choice, get the  Culture Compass™ from our store. If we explore the US culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep driving factors of American culture relative to other cultures in our world. By supplying you with this information please realise that culture describes a central tendency in society. Everybody is unique, yet social control ensures that most people will not deviate too much from the norm. Moreover, within every country regional cultural differences exist, also in the States. Americans, however, don’t need to go to a cultural briefing before moving to another state successfully. POWER DISTANCE The fact that everybody is unique implies that we are all unequal. One of the most salient aspects of inequality is the degree of power each person exerts or can exert over other persons; power being defined as the degree to which a person is able to influence other people’s ideas and behavior. This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal, and it expresses the attitude of the culture toward these power inequalities amongst us. Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. It has to do with the fact that a society’s inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. INDIVIDUALISM The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people´s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “We”. In Individualist societies people are only supposed to look after themselves and their direct family. In Collectivist societies people belong to “in groups” that take care of them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The fairly low score on Power Distance(40) in combination with one of the the most Individualist (91) cultures in the world reflects itself in the following: The American premise of “liberty and justice for all.” This is evidenced by an explicit emphasis on equal rights in all aspects of American society and government. Within American organisations, hierarchy is established for convenience, superiors are accessible and managers rely on individual employees and teams for their expertise. Both managers and employees expect to be consulted and information is shared frequently. At the same time, communication is informal, direct and participative to a degree. The society is loosely-knit in which the expectation is that people look after themselves and their immediate families only and should not rely (too much) on authorities for support. There is also a high degree of geographical mobility in the United States. Americans are the best joiners in the world; however it is often difficult, especially among men, to develop deep friendships. Americans are accustomed to doing business or interacting with people they don’t know well. Consequently, Americans are not shy about approaching their prospective counterparts in order to obtain or seek information. In the business world, employees are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. Also, within the exchange-based world of work we see that hiring, promotion and decisions are based on merit or evidence of what one has done or can do. MASCULINITY A high score (Masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the “winner” or “best-in-the-field”. This value system starts in childhood and continues throughout one’s life – both in work and leisure pursuits. A low score (Feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. A Feminine society is one where quality of life is the sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable. The fundamental issue here is what motivates people, wanting to be the best (Masculine) or liking what you do (Feminine). The score of the US on Masculinity is high at 62, and this can be seen in the typical American behavioral patterns. This can be explained by the the combination of a high Masculinity drive together with the most Individualist drive in the world. In other words, Americans, so to speak, all show their Masculine drive individually. The British, however, have the same culture in this respect. The question, therefore, should be: is the same drive not normally to be seen on the surface? This difference is a reflection of the higher score of the US on Uncertainty Avoidance than of the UK. In other words, in both societies we find the same drive, but Americans show it up-front whereas the British will take you by surprise. This American combination reflects itself in the following: Behavior in school, work, and play are based on the shared values that people should “strive to be the best they can be” and that “the winner takes all”. As a result, Americans will tend to display and talk freely about their “successes” and achievements in life. Being successful per se is not the great motivator in American society, but being able to show one’s success Many American assessment systems are based on precise target setting, by which American employees can show how well a job they did. There exists a “can-do” mentality which creates a lot of dynamism in the society, as it is believed that there is always the possibility to do things in a better way Typically, Americans “live to work” so that they can obtain monetary rewards and as a consequence attain higher status based on how good one can be. Many white collar workers will move to a more fancy neighborhood after each and every substantial promotion. It is believed that a certain degree of conflict will bring out the best of people, as it is the goal to be “the winner”. As a consequence, we see a lot of polarisation and court cases. This mentality nowadays undermines the American premise of “liberty and justice for all.” Rising inequality is endangering democracy, because a widening gap among the classes may slowly push Power Distance up and Individualism down. UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE The dimension Uncertainty Avoidance has to do with the way that a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? This ambiguity brings with it anxiety and different cultures have learnt to deal with this anxiety in different ways. The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these is reflected in the score on Uncertainty Avoidance. The US scores below average, with a low score of 46, on the Uncertainty Avoidance dimension. . As a consequence, the perceived context in which Americans find themselves will impact their behaviour more than if the culture would have either scored higher or lower. Thus, this cultural pattern reflects itself as follows: There is a fair degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices or food. Americans tend to be more tolerant of ideas or opinions from anyone and allow the freedom of expression. At the same time, Americans do not require a lot of rules and are less emotionally expressive than higher-scoring cultures. At the same time, 9/11 has created a lot of fear in the American society culminating in the efforts of government to monitor everybody through the NSA and other security organisations LONG TERM ORIENTATION This dimension describes how every society has to maintain some links with its own past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future, and societies prioritise these two existential goals differently. Normative societies. which score low on this dimension, for example, prefer to maintain time-honoured traditions and norms while viewing societal change with suspicion. Those with a culture which scores high, on the other hand, take a more pragmatic approach: they encourage thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future. The United States scores normative on the fifth dimension with a low score of 26. This is reflected by the following: Americans are prone to analyse new information to check whether it is true. Thus, the culture doesn’t make most Americans pragmatic, but this should not be confused with the fact that Americans are very practical, being reflected by the “can-do” mentallity mentioned above. The polarisation mentioned above is, so to speak, strengthened by the fact that many Americans have very strong ideas about what is “good” and “evil”. This may concern issues such as abortion, use of drugs, euthanasia, weapons or the size and rights of the government versus the States and versus citizens. The US is the one of the only “Caucasian” countries in the world where, since the beginning of the 20th century, visiting church has increased. This increase is also evident in some post-Soviet republics such as Russia. American businesses measure their performance on a short-term basis, with profit and loss statements being issued on a quarterly basis. This also drives individuals to strive for quick results within the work place. INDULGENCE One challenge that confronts humanity, now and in the past, is the degree to which small children are socialised. Without socialisation we do not become “human”. This dimension is defined as the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses, based on the way they were raised. A tendency toward a relatively weak control over their impulses is called “Indulgence”, whereas a relatively strong control over their urges is called “Restraint”. Cultures can be described as Indulgent or Restrained. The United States scores as an Indulgent (68) society on the sixth dimension. This, in combination with a normative score, is reflected by the following contradictory attitudes and behaviour: Work hard and play hard. The States has waged a war against drugs and is still very busy in doing so, yet drug addiction in the States is higher than in many other wealthy countries. It is a prudish society yet even some well-known televangelists appear to be immoral. What Is a Message in Communication? · Share · Flipboard · Email Top of Form PRINT  Bottom of Form AAMIR QURESHI/Contributor/Getty Images English · English Grammar · An Introduction to Punctuation · Writing By  Richard Nordquist Updated July 14, 2019 In rhetorical and communication studies, a message is defined as information conveyed by words (in speech or writing), and/or other signs and symbols. A message (verbal or nonverbal, or both) is the content of the communication process. The originator of the message in the communication process is the sender. The sender conveys the message to a receiver.  Verbal and Nonverbal Content A message may include verbal content, such as written or spoken words, sign language, email, text messages, phone calls, snail-mail, and even sky-writing, John O. Burtis and Paul D. Turman note in their book Leadership Communication as Citizenship, adding: Intentionally or not, both verbal and nonverbal content is part of the information that is transferred in a message. If nonverbal cues do not align with the verbal message, ambiguity is introduced even as uncertainty is increased. A message will also include nonverbal content, such as meaningful behavior beyond words. This includes body movement and gestures, eye contact, artifacts, and clothing, as well as vocal variety, touch, and timing Encoding and Decoding Messages Communication refers to the process of sending and receiving messages, which can also be referred to as encoding and decoding messages. However, say Courtland L. Bovée, John V. Thill, and Barbara E. Schatzman, in Business Communication Essentials, communication is effective only when the message is understood and when it stimulates action or encourages the receiver to think in new ways. Indeed, some people — such as those who are highly media literate, for example — may be able to see much more in a given message than others, says W. James Potter in Media Literacy, adding: They are more aware of the levels of meaning. This enhances understanding. They are more in charge of programming their own mental codes. This enhances control. They are much more likely to get what they want from the messages. This enhances appreciation. In essence, some people may be able to gain far more insight as they decode messages than others, depending on their level of literacy in the medium in which the message is being encoded. Those people will gain a higher understanding, control, and appreciation of a given message. The Message in Rhetoric Rhetoric is the study and practice of effective communication. A rhetorical act, note Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Susan Schultz Huxman, in their book, The Rhetorical Act: Thinking, Speaking and Writing Critically, is an intentional, created, polished attempt to overcome the challenges in a given situation with a specific audience on a given issue to achieve a particular end.​ In other words, a rhetorical act is an effort the speaker makes to persuade others of her point of view. In performing a rhetorical act, a speaker or author creates a message whose shape and form are melded in an effort to persuade an audience. The notion of rhetoric dates back centuries, to the ancient Greeks. Both Cicero and Quintilian accepted the Aristotelian notion that a rhetorical message [inventio] consists of the effective use of logical, ethical, and pathetic proof, says J.L. Golden, et al., in The Rhetoric of Western Thought. Golden adds that the rhetor who has command of these three persuasive strategies is in a good position to motivate an audience, according to these Greek thinkers. Messages in the Media Successful politicians and others have been able to put forward messages to persuade a vast audience as to their point of view. Peter Obstler, in his essay Working With the Media published in Fighting Toxics: A Manual for Protecting Your Family, Community, and Workplace, says: A well-defined message has two key components. First, it is simple, direct, and concise. Second, it defines the issues on your own terms and in your own words. Obstler gives the example of the well-defined message in the slogan used by Ronald Reagans presidential campaign in 1980: Are you better off today than you were four years ago? The message was simple and obvious, but it also allowed the Reagan campaign to control the rhetoric of the 1980 presidential election debate at every turn, regardless of the nature or complexity of the situation in which it was used. Bolstered by the persuasive message, Reagan went on to win the presidency by defeating his Democratic rival, incumbent President Jimmy Carter, in a general election landslide. Sources Barry National Toxics Campaign. Fighting Toxics: A Manual for Protecting your Family, Community, and Workplace. Gary Cohen (Editor), John OConnor (Editor), Barry Commoner (Foreword), Kindle Edition, Island Press, April 16, 2013. Bovée, Courtland L. Business Communication Essentials. John V. Thill, Barbara E. Schatzman, Paperback, Prentice, 2003. Burtis, John O. Leadership Communication as Citizenship. Paul D. Turman, Paperback, SAGE Publications, Inc, November 6, 2009. Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. The Rhetorical Act: Thinking, Speaking, and Writing Critically. Suszn Schultz Huxman, Thomas A. Burkholder, 5th Edition, Cengage Learning, January 1, 2014. Golden, James L. The Rhetoric of Western Thought. Goodwin F. Berquist, William E. Coleman, J. Michael Sproule, 8th Edition, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, August 1, 2003. Albania*