As a new member of the global work team, establishing team communication guidelines is a must. You decide that this is a good time to discuss the team’s charter with your colleagues. Discuss the following questions with your team:
What are the specific considerations of working on a multicultural team? Identify at least 2.
How should the team address the differences between in-person and virtual communication vehicles?
What issues could arise in relation to cultural differences in time, personal space, and cultural symbolism?
How will the team resolve any individual or group conflicts?
When working on a multicultural team, there are two important considerations to keep in mind. First, teams must understand and appreciate the unique cultural backgrounds of its members (Chen et al., 2019). This includes recognizing different perspectives, work styles and approaches that team members might bring to the table. Each culture has its own values, beliefs and norms which can vary greatly from one another. Therefore, it is essential for all team members to be open-minded when collaborating with someone who comes from a different culture in order to foster an environment of respect and trust where everyone can be heard (Takagi & Labianca, 2016).
Second, teams should create communication protocols which are “culturally aware” (Singh & Singh 2018) in order to ensure better understanding across cultures. Different cultures use varying forms of communication such as formal or informal language structures as well as nonverbal cues such as hand gestures and facial expressions when conveying their thoughts or opinions (Von Bergen et al., 2019). It is important for teams to recognize these differences so they can adjust their methods of communication accordingly in order to avoid misunderstandings between team members due various cultural backgrounds.
In conclusion, having members from diverse cultural backgrounds on a team brings tremendous value but also requires sensitivity regarding how people communicate with one another. Taking into account both the varied perspectives that each member brings along with the necessity for culturally aware communication protocols will help ensure successful collaboration among those from different cultural backgrounds engaging on any given project or task.
is leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which