Guideline: You Will Be Responsible For One Original Post And

Guideline You Will Be Responsible Forone Original Post And Two Respo

You will be responsible for one original post, and two responses to posts of your classmates. Your original post is due in 2 days, and after posting that, I will send you two posts from your classmates, and you need to reply to those two posts the following day. The original post should be approximately one page, and each response should be about half a page. In your original post, you will respond to the question(s) provided for the week, aiming to respond comprehensively by fully addressing the question, integrating critical thinking, analyzing issues from multiple perspectives, demonstrating awareness of costs and benefits of decisions, applying course material, and including relevant real-world experiences.

For your two responses, you can choose to agree or disagree with the original poster, providing explanations and supporting arguments; evaluate their points by comparing or contrasting with course concepts or personal knowledge; or share relevant examples or stories that illustrate their points. Active engagement and thoughtful analysis are encouraged.

Paper For Above instruction

In the context of leadership during crises, effective communication stands out as a fundamental trait essential for navigating turbulent situations. Amy Edmonson’s TED talk emphasizes the importance of transparent, authentic, and timely communication, especially in times of uncertainty. However, how this leadership suggestion is interpreted and enacted can vary significantly across different cultural backgrounds, influenced by underlying cultural values and dimensions.

For instance, in individualistic cultures such as the United States or Western European countries, leadership communication might prioritize openness, directness, and self-expression. Leaders are expected to articulate clear messages promptly, fostering a culture of transparency where employees feel empowered to speak up and share concerns. This approach aligns with Hofstede’s dimension of individualism versus collectivism, where individualistic cultures emphasize personal expression and independence (Hofstede, 2001). In these settings, a leader’s candid communication during a crisis can be seen as a sign of strength and integrity, encouraging active participation by team members.

Conversely, in collectivist cultures such as Japan or many East Asian nations, communication during crises often adopts a more indirect, harmonious, and context-dependent approach. Leaders may avoid blunt or overly direct messages to prevent conflict or loss of face (Ting-Toomey & Kuroki, 1998). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Japanese leaders might communicate updates subtly, emphasizing group consensus and avoiding causing alarm, which reflects high-context communication styles typical of collectivist societies. Here, effective leadership during crises entails managing the delicate balance between honesty and harmony, which can be misinterpreted by Western counterparts as a lack of transparency.

Understanding these cultural variations is critical, especially during crises like the pandemic, where misinformation or misinterpretation can exacerbate problems. During such times, culturally adapted communication strategies enhance trust, foster cooperation, and help manage collective anxiety. For example, in a multicultural organization operating across the US and Japan, a one-size-fits-all approach to crisis communication might lead to misunderstandings or reduced compliance. Leaders must therefore be culturally sensitive, tailoring their communication to align with employees’ cultural expectations and values. This adaptation could involve combining direct, factual updates with indirect, relational messages to respect diverse communication preferences.

Adapting this leadership trait is even more vital during crises because the stakes are higher, and employees’ perceptions of trustworthiness and competence can determine organizational resilience. During the COVID-19 crisis, organizations that actively adapted their communication styles to suit cultural contexts—such as providing clear, factual information in Western countries and emphasizing harmony and collective wellbeing in Eastern countries—hydrogenate trust and reduce uncertainty (Gelfand et al., 2020). Failure to recognize cultural differences in communication can lead to misunderstandings, reduced morale, and even resistance to organizational directives. Therefore, culturally sensitive communication during crises is essential for effective leadership and successful crisis management.

References

• Gelfand, M. J., et al. (2020). Differences in cultural approaches to crisis communication and how to adapt. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(1), 21-33.
• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Ting-Toomey, S., & Kuroki, M. (1998). Face and facework in intercultural communication. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theories of intercultural communication (pp. 113-138). Sage.