Ethnocentricity is one of the most critical challenges that the world faces. Understanding cultural preference is very important aspect in any international organization. There are various cultural differences such as verbal and non-verbal communication, as well food that is peculiar in each culture. Ethnocentric people favor their culture to those of others (James W. Neuliep, Stephanie M. Hintz, and James C. McCroskey, 2005). In most cases, businesses in the hotel industry offer service depending on the number of customers requesting for specific meals or cuisines. In this case, the demand and supply come into play while offering their service.
In the case described, the client did not appreciate the cultural diversity in the region of visit from that of his home region. From this perspective, the client did not understand why any fine restaurant does not offer cheval. Such a situation is highly regrettable. I expect that any culture-sensitive person does not expect what is offered at home is in all other parts of the world. Such a situation occurs if the person presumes that his culture is superior to the culture of the others and as such the rest of the world ought to be using their cultural affiliations. Such a move is not welcome in the current state of the world. In addition, a person does not expect the restaurant to prepare cuisines that the local or at least the most frequent visitors do not use. From a business and economic perspective, the client tends to ignore all such laws that operate intentionally.
On the case on anger, the client has misplaced anger. If one understands the cultural diversity in the world, such a person will be ready to appreciate what others offer and gladly accept them. Therefore, the anger exhibited by the client is a show of how ethnocentric he is. In particular, the client tends to assume that he has a right to what he wants even in regions where his culture does not, or maybe have not heard of such cuisines. In the event that he was culture sensitive, the client could have prior to the meeting, made such clear for the restaurant to make such food.
On the same note, the host could have checked around for restraints that offer such cuisines for the sole purpose of customer from his home region should the client has informed him of the demands. Being angry for what happened is intimidating and it’s made worse by not signing the agreement or finishing the deal. A peripheral idea on food ought not to stop a serious business man from entering into business idea just because he is angry about cultural aspects that can be change with time.
In the second case, for a company to hire a less qualified person into the position citing a “laid back” culture and accent is both ethnocentric and prejudiced. In addition, such a move is discriminatory. The fact that the department never has employment anyone from the minority is an indicator that it has a history of shielding away the minority in its employment practices. Citing the accent indicates that the department presumes that a person can have difficulties in communication. It is imperative that the departmental heads did not have difficulties in understanding the person during the interview. They could have noted such as the main reason for disqualification.
If that had occurred, the person could have failed the interview and is disqualified on fair ground. The same case applies on not giving the person a chance to work before coming into conclusion that the person shall not be understood due to the accent. The belief that the laid-back nature of the person’s culture and by extension of others, the company has never employed, is ethnocentric. The department has not had any experience with any employee from such cultures; therefore, rejecting the person such grounds is both prejudicial and ethnocentric.
Faced by this circumstance, as a common practice, my friend would call and ask me what happened as a follow-up. First, I would call him to apologies on my behalf for what happened. It is a fact that the trust is critical in friendship. I would explain the case details on the same. Such would make a person understand what happened and clear all doubts he could have on the same. In addition, I would inform him of the measures I have taken to ensure that such does not occur again in the future to him or any other friend.
At the same time, I would call someone in higher position to express the grievance on behalf of my friend. Such is not because he is a friend, but because what happened is wrong and should not be repeated. I would require the person in authority to correct the appointments and offer the chance to a more qualified person even it is not my friend. The integrity of the company lies not only in the recruiting process but also on the caliber of employees it employs. Therefore, it is immoral to allow such thing to occur.
In conclusion, ethnocentric is used to disqualify qualified people and employ less qualified people by virtue of their culture. Such a move is in itself prejudicial and discriminatory. Measures needs to be put in place to reduce the occurrences of ethnocentric. At the same, culture sensitivity helps in unifying employees and mutual respect in the work places.
James W. Neuliep, Stephanie M. Hintz, and James C. McCroskey (2005). The Influence of Ethnocentrism in Organizational Contexts: Perceptions of Interviewee and Managerial Attractiveness, Credibility, and Effectiveness. Retrieved on October 29, 2014 from http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/publications/210.pdf