In his interesting and entertaining book "The Geography of Thought", Richard E. Nisbett explains that "human cognition is not everywhere the same (…) First, that members of different cultures differ in their ‘metaphysics’ or fundamental beliefs about the nature of the world. Second, that the characteristic thought processes of different groups differ greatly. Third, that the thought processes are of a piece with beliefs about the nature of the world: People use the cognitive tools that seem to make sense –given the sense they make of the world." He also adds that the "differences in people’s attitudes and beliefs, and even their values and preferences, might not be a matter merely of different inputs and teachings, but rather an inevitable consequence of using different tools to understand the world". He then jumps into a conclusion that may not be very promising for educators: "if that’s true, then efforts to improve international understanding may be less likely to pay off than one might hope". The remaining core part of his book is devoted to describe what are the main differences between the two major approaches to the world: the Western and the Eastern.
However, the reality of multicultural MBA classes at many internationally-oriented business schools demonstrates more encouraging facts. At my school, for example, MBA participants from many diverse cultures engage in active debate about culturally sensitive issues –like corporate responsibility or ethics- and they not only use similar paradigms of thought in their analysis, but even reach the same conclusions. In an analogous way as to how musicians from different cultural backgrounds can play a piece of Mozart following the same standards, students with different views about the world can apply the same principles and pursue a common line of reasoning to take managerial decisions. Obviously, this does not entail uniformity, and the questions discussed in class do not have "a priori" solutions, but our experience reveals that the differing cultural views of students enrich the debate and do not preclude sharing the same ground of understanding and the arrival at similar decisions.
Taking into account this tension between diversity and cognitive convergence in multicultural MBA classes, I wonder what should be the desired methodological attitude adopted by business school educators. Should they suppose that world economic and political systems, and consequently values, are converging, in line with the thesis defended by Francis Fukuyama a decade ago, or should they believe that the world is deriving towards a "clash of civilisations", according to the vision of Samuel Huntington, who predicts continued difference of values across the board? I support the view of Shinobu Kitayama, quoted in Nisbett’s book, that there is "evidence that cognitive processes could be modified even after relatively limited amounts of time spent in another culture". Our school’s experience tells that the multicultural exposure of participants in the MBA programme, through the development of other cultures’ knowledge, facilitates convergence and mutual understanding. At the same time, business is a subject that naturally promotes common understanding and convergence among its cultivators. Let me recall one of my favourite maxims: good business is the best antidote to bad politics.
