The critical
incident technique (CIT) is a behavioral qualitative tool popularized by John
C. Flanagan in 1954 through his paper “The
Critical Incident Technique” as published in the Psychological Bulletin. Originally, Flanagan used this technique in
the United States Air Force Army during World War II as a way of improving the
methodology used in evaluating job description, performance appraisal, and in
designing functional training programs (Ansari & Baumgartel, 1981, p. 221).
By Flanagan’s own words, he described CIT as:
“A set of procedures for
collecting direct observations of human behavior in such a way as to facilitate
their potential usefulness in solving practical problems and developing broad
psychological principles. The critical incident technique outlines procedures
for collecting observed incidents having special significance and meeting
systematically defined criteria.” (Flanagan 1954, p. 327).
For an
incident to be considered critical, according to Flanagan, from the point of
view of the observer, it must be crucial to the job of the person being
observed and that a corresponding behavior is exhibited by the person under
observation which critically led to the success or failure in handling the
incident (Flanagan, 1954). In this paper, the CIT will be applied using a
personal experience on cross-cultural misunderstandings in the workplace and
reflect on it using the theoretical frameworks of cultural interpretation and
from a managerial perspective.
I
am being guilty of committing cross-cultural misunderstanding with polychronic people
at work. The concept of monochronic vs polychronic culture came to my
understanding clearly just only recently. And when I try to reflect back in my
work experiences, I realized now that I am a monochronic person and that
explains why I often get into bad terms with workmates who seem to be lacking
in focus and the urgency in doing the job right away. One vivid example of this
was when I held a position as the team leader of a group of design engineers from
a company I work previously. There was this one member that I am so frustrated
with often. Although we have official deadlines to all the projects we’re
working in the operational level, however, in my team, I always set an earlier
deadline so when there are unforeseen circumstances that affect the work,
there’s still time to check my team’s output and meet the actual deadline.
However, this one member often missed the deadline I set and based on my
observation, he seems to be doing other things as well that are less relevant
to tasks assigned to him. I sometimes caught him in just a few hours of being
focused at his workstation but suddenly you with see him around chatting with
other workmates. So, often, I reprimand him, and this created really a friction
in our working relationship.
The
CIT is a five-step process that is systematic and sequential in nature. The
steps are namely: (1) Establish the general aims; (2) Establish plans and
specifications; (3) Collect the data; (4) Analyze the data; (5) Interpret and
report the data (Hughes et al., 2007, p. 51). In relation to the case, if I had
only known the existence of CIT before, it could explain objectively why that
person frequently missed the deadline I set for the team and could make sense of
his lack of urgency and focus to the task assigned to him. Perhaps, I could
have avoided reprimanding him frequently which obviously affected his drive at
work and could have developed a better working relationship. If I had known
then the existence of monochronic vs polychronic culture concept, I might have
able to adjust to the working style of that person and have devised a strategy that
may not necessarily alter his polychronic orientation but complement it and
make the best use out of it for the team’s goal.
Using
Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory, the case can also be evaluated using the
identity dimension. Realizing it now, my orientation in the identity spectrum
is pointing towards the individualism end while that team member I mentioned on
this case seems to be oriented to the other side of the identity spectrum which
is the collectivism. According to Hofstede, a person who has a collective
orientation tends to value relationships and has the needs to be integrated into
a close-knitted group environment (as cited in Cultural Intelligence for
Leaders, 2012). That explains why that person cannot focus on his work for long
as he has the needs to interact with other people and does not want to be left
in his cubicle all day long. Perhaps, this also the reason why I have been
frustrated with him often as he has an obviously pronounced collectivism needs
while I am in the opposite side.
If
I view that incident now in the shoes of a manager, I might have handled my
frustrations differently. I could have been more objective and suspended my
biases. If I have known before what I know now about cultural intelligence, my
approach could have been very different. As a manager, it is expected of me to
understand the cultural background and idiosyncrasies of the people that I am
leading. It is the best interest of managers to find out what makes a person
tick and that includes navigating to each individual’s differences, so it can
be leveraged for the organization’s goals. It is important as well for managers
to suspend its biases and ideals so its judgment will not be clouded. As a
manager, knowing the tools that will help in navigating cultural differences is
essential such as the ABC of cultural intelligence, Hofstede’s cultural
dimension, Hall’s cultural dimension, and CIT to name a few. The outcome of how
I handled the cross-cultural misunderstanding in the incident I cited could
have been more positive using these tools I mentioned.
Conclusion
The
CIT has many applications. It goes beyond what Flanagan originally intended it
to be. Its application expands to several disciplines such as social science,
psychology and counseling, management, and even in education. It can even be applied
to understanding cultural issues. It is another useful tool that a manager or the
organization can add in its toolkit in dealing with organizational struggles
such as in the case of cross-cultural setting. CIT is not a flawless tool. So,
knowing its advantages and disadvantages can help a manager or the organization
when CIT would be favorable to employ.
References
Ansari,
M. A. & Baumgartel, H. (1981). The Critical Incident Technique: Description
and Current Uses. Journal of Social & Economic. Studies, 9 (2) pp. 221-231.
Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236841510_The_Critical_Incident_Technique_Description_and_Current_Uses_1
Cultural Intelligence for Leaders (2012). Creative
Commons by-nc-sa 3.0. Available online at
http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/cultural-intelligence-for-leaders/
Flanagan,
J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. The Psychological Bulletin,
51(4),
327-358. Retrieved from:
https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/cit-article.pdf
Hughes, H., Williamson, K., & Lloyd, A. (2007).
Critical Incident Technique. In: Lipu, Suzanne, (ed) Exploring methods in
information literacy research. Topics in Australasian Library and Information
Studies, Number 28. Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University,
Wagga Wagga, N.S.W., pp. 49-66. Retrieved from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/17545/1/17545.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment