Psychology

1. The workplace situation involves a Muslim woman called Fatuma. Fatuma had been working in the organization for almost two years and had always gone to work wearing her hijab without fear of reprimand from colleagues or the manager. However, the management of the company changed hands after the two years and Fatuma was now under the supervision of a new manager. While attending an employees meeting, the manager requested her to remove her hijab and instinctively Fatuma responded defensively claiming that it was against her beliefs to do so. The manager went on to ask her how she could work while wearing that thing.  Angry at her supposed disrespect the manager made it clear that she either removed the hijab or risked losing her job. Fatuma walked out of the meeting feeling frustrated and quite insulted. Also, there is a likelihood that Fatuma was unable to cope with the attack which as Cancelli (2000) asserts may indicate low self esteem or dissatisfaction with her life. During the meeting, the manager went ahead to justify his actions and even made remarks on the audacity Fatuma had, yet those of her kind were terrorizing the world.

2. This misunderstanding and discrimination by the manager against Fatuma does suggest the absence of a universal diverse orientation. The manager failed to acknowledge the cultural differences which existed between him and Fatuma. He was neither open nor ready to accept anothers beliefs. When he criticized Fatuma for wearing the hijab and even ordered her to remove it, he failed to realize that Fatuma saw her hijab as a representation of her faith and culture. She had beliefs which she was not ready to give up for the sake of her work because they were far more important and do not in any way hamper her productivity. There is also a possibility that the manager felt the need to assert his authority as a dominant male in the workplace. Farough (2008) claims that, Dominant masculinity may be a stereotype, but a very powerful and successful one. (p.149).The manager could not accept or even respect her faith and culture which explains why he resulted to such mistreatment.

3. The ability to have been fully empathetic may have been hindered by the absence of a universal diverse orientation and emotional intelligence. Carlozzi et al, (2006) explains that the inability for individuals to completely accept both the differences and similarities which exist amongst people of diverse backgrounds hinders their ability for empathy. Therefore, the managers inability was an indication of the lack of perspective taking. He was unable to listen and take into account what wearing a hijab meant to Fatuma. This further inhibited his ability to show understanding and compassion for Fatuma. Moreover, this lack of emotional intelligence could not allow the manager to look beyond his own opinions and beliefs and look at issues from anothers point of view. Emotional concern is directly related to empathy and without the ability to put aside ones distress it becomes difficult to be empathetic.

4. In respect to the knowledge of universal diverse orientation and emotional intelligence, this situation should have been handled in a completely different way. It is crucial for the manager to adjust his emotional intelligence capabilities and realize the effects his opinions might have on others. On noticing Fatumas hijab, the manager should have restrained himself from lashing out at her. It would have been wise to become open to the differences which presented themselves. Developing a better working relationship with Fatuma would have allowed him to learn more about her, her beliefs and views. It is only then that he can adapt to behaviors which are indicators of emotional concern and empathy. Dana (2000) suggests healing the cultural self of individuals in order to pave way for acceptance of others.  Mistreatment of Fatuma evoked great concern for her wellbeing especially to those colleagues who had worked with her and respected her faith and beliefs.

5. In the peer situation presented, the writer found himself caught up in a situation of individual and institutional racism as pointed out by. In these circumstances, the writer, the pastor and his wife were terminated from their leadership posts after having experienced a hostile working environment where they were also seen as a threat to the church and the community. This situation became highly aggravated because the writer was facing a group of people who had already made up their minds and no amount of pleading or seeking intervention would have caused them to relent.

In a similar situation, I would have sought reconciliation with the conflicting church members, explained my predicaments and assured them of my trustworthiness. However, it is possible just like the writer to encounter an empathetically hostile lot which completely sabotages any efforts for reconciliation. When the situation becomes quite futile, it is best to withdraw from it by distancing myself from the church. As an empathetic individual, I would understand and accept their ways of handling situations even though I did not agree with their methods. This would have been a response especially observed from a culturally sensitive person. That is, to understand the behaviors, beliefs, values and customs practiced in the church.

Moreover, attributes of respect, trust and a universal diverse orientation must be present in order to allow for conflicting groups and individuals to gain common ground. This conflict may also have been resolved through the use a neutral party. If all the churches members involved are willing, inviting others to look at their predicament and offer suggestions would have allowed everyone to air their grievances. Even without a positive outcome, they would be able to grasp the other members reasoning and from that point come to some sort of agreement.