Q Do you remember a particular situation of cross-cultural encounters where you had a sort of strange or difficult perceptions and feelings about? Could you shortly describe this situation?In the aftermath, why do you think these difficulties occurred?

I am a pilot in Indian Air Force and have been serving for the last twenty years. In my work experience, I have had varied cross cultural experiences but the most unique was working in a UN peace support mission in Congo. I was given the responsibility of planning flying operations at the UN Headquarter in Congo in which I was closely working with people from different nations such as France, Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, UK etc. This presented a unique problem as the situation was not about dealing with one different culture, but instead many different cultures. The problem was compounded by the fact that we did not even belong to the same organization as there were only a few permanent UN employees; and rest were on temporary assignments ranging from 1-3 years like me. I encountered various problems which were related to the difference in cultural background and organizational background. Instead of concentrating on a particular situation, I would like to bring out the three pronged approach which I employed to successfully negotiate the assignment. The three prongs were; 1. Understand the source of difficulty in a cross cultural context, 2. Develop own ability to negotiate the cultural and organisational barrier, and 3. Develop my team so as to produce high quality results. I was liberally helped in this process by the vast material made available on this subject by UN and IAF.

Understanding Source Of DifficultyThe sources of difficulty in a multicultural team in peace keeping operations were found to be1:

Source of Difficulty %

Language 46.1

Divided Loyalties (NATO, UN, Country…) 32.6

Cultural Differences 31.2

Mission Diverging Interpretations 31.2

Inter- Operability Problems 28.4

Professional Preparation 28.4

Different Ethical Codes 24.8

Communication 22

1 Boene, B (2002). Relations with officers from other nations in military operations other than war and in the im-pact of comparisons on professional self-perceptions. In G. Caforio (Ed.), The Flexible Officer (pp89-105). Rome, Italy: Artistic and Publishing Company.

Source of Difficulty %

Rivalries 17

Rules of Engagement 16.3

Other 4.2

Note: Percentages exceed 100 because more than one item could be chosen by the respondentsHence it can be seen that there were two major impediments to team work: cultural diversity (language, cultural differences, communication) and diversity in military culture (mission diverging interpretations, inter-operability problems, different ethical codes etc).

Developing Own Ability My first aim in developing own ability was to achieve Cultural Intelligence- the capability to function effectively across national, ethnic, and organizational cultures2. In doing so, I found a model proposed by Livermore3 particularly helpful.

CQ Drive (motivational) would involve developing the interest, confidence, and drive to adapt cross-culturally. It has three sub-dimensions: Intrinsic Motivation – the enjoyment which one derives from cross-cultural experiences; Extrinsic Motivation – the tangible benefits which one derives from such an appointment; and Self-efficacy – the confidence that one would be successful in a cross-cultural situation.

2 Soon Ang and Linn Dyne, “Conceptualisations of Cultural Intelligence” in Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement and Applications (Armonk, NY: ME. Sharpe,2008),3.3 David A Livermore(2009), “ Leading With Cultural Intelligence: The New secret to Success”, p15

Cultural Intelligence

CQ Drive(Motivational CQ)

IntrinsicExtrinsic

Self-Efficacy

CQ Knowledge(Cognitive CQ)Cultural Systems

Cultural Norms and Values

CQ Strategy(Metacognitive

CQ)Awareness PlanningChecking

CQ Action(Behavioral CQ)

VerbalNon-VerbalSpeech Acts

CQ Knowledge (cognitive) is gaining knowledge about a culture and understanding how it affects the functioning of the individuals in a team. The two sub-dimensions are the cultural systems and cultural norms. The various facets of cultural dimension which need to be understood are:

(a) Individualism-Collectivism(b) Power Distance(c) Uncertainty Avoidance(d) Masculinity-Femininity(e) Long-Short term Orientation4

(f) Past-Future Orientation(g) Monochronic-Polychronic(h) High-Low context5

(i) Analytic-Holistic Reasoning6

(j)CQ Strategy (meta-cognitive) is the ability to use the understanding of the cultural aspects to solve culturally complex problems. It has three sub-dimensions; Awareness- of the processes in self and others and interpret the same; Planning- come up with an appropriate plan for the cross-cultural contact; and Checking- the plan for efficacy/results and devising a new one if required.

CQ Action (behavior) stresses the importance of changing verbal and non-verbal actions when interacting in a cross-cultural environment. Along with its three sub-dimensions of Verbal Actions, Non-Verbal Actions and Speech, it advocates usage of flexible actions which would get the message across to the audience.

The style of leadership to be employed also needs careful consideration as different cultures have varying perception of leadership traits. Den Hartog et al (1999) found that while some leadership traits ( such as just, intelligent, decisive) were seen as universally positive, and other leadership traits (such as ruthless and egocentric) were seen as universally negative, a number of leadership traits ( such as enthusiasm, sensitivity, sincerity) evoked different reactions7. The leadership style would hence need to be tailored as per the situation. I thus employed the full spectrum of leadership competencies i.e. Transactional + Transformational to meet the challenges of multi-national leadership.Finally, I employed the ten tips given by Cremin et al. (2005) which summarize the problems and the actions needed by a leader in a multi-national team 8. I also

4 (a) to (e), Hofstede G (1980), “ Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work related Values”, Beverly Hills, CA:Sage5 (f) to (h), Hall ET and Hall MR (1990). “Understanding Cultural Differences”, Garden City, NY: Intercultural Press6 (i), Choi and Nisbett (2000). Cultural psychology of Surprise: Holistic theories and recognition of contradic-tion. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology,79.890-9057 Den Hartog et al (1999), Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are at-tributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219-2568 Cremin et al (2005), The challenges of command in multinational environments, The British Army Review, 136, 54-60.

matched the tips to the source of difficulty as the final aim was to target the source of difficulties as listed earlier. The tips are:

(a) Build your national knowledge of the historical, social, political, economic make up of other nations in your command ,along with a database of multinational experience.( targets “cultural differences” and “different ethical codes” as well as “communication”)

(b) Be prepared to adapt your command style.(c) Prioritize relationship building. Mutual respect is the key. The goal is to foster

a communicative, collaborative and co-operative relationship. ( targets “rivalries”)

(d) Understand national contingent capabilities. Do not overtask contingent forces, but build the level of challenge in tasks slowly. (targets “interoperability problems”)

(e) Don’t assume your way is the only way. Different approaches may be needed.(f) Negotiation is commonplace; command by discussion. However some

cultures may take this as a sign of negative leadership and using this style would depend on the follower(s).

(g) Be prepared for variation in standards of spoken English (and be careful in the use of acronyms). Always seek a closed loop communication when conveying important information.( targets “language” and “communication”)

(h) Establish a common sense of purpose. (targets “ divided loyalties”)(i) Where possible establish a Common Operating Procedure (COP). E.g., when

shared doctrine and SOPs are lacking, create a unifying set of COPs/SOPs. (targets “inter-operability problems” and mission diverging interpretations” and “rules of engagement”)

(j) Promote equity of risk and reward.(targets “rivalries”)

Team DevelopmentAs brought out earlier that the two major barriers to team work are cultural diversity and diversity in military cultures.English is the accepted language of communication in peace support operations. Speaking slowly and clearly (while avoiding acronyms) goes a long way in addressing language problems when speaking to non-native speakers.Barriers to communication arise not only because of difference in language but also because the same event is liable to be perceived differently by observers of different cultures. The reason is that each person tends to see the world through the prism of his own culture; Cultural Lens Model 9(Klein et al,2000). The team was sensitized to this fact as well as the facets of cultural dimension which were recorded earlier. Such measures would also address the issues of ethnocentrism and prejudice in the team.In addition, it is the leader’s responsibility to mange the cultural diversity between the team and the local environment. Establishment of COPs/SOPs would mitigate to

9 Klien et al (2000), “Cultural barriers to multinational C2 decision making.” Command And Control Research Technology Symposium, Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, CA

some extent the diversity in military culture. Other factors which need to be kept in mind while developing the team are10:

(a) Technology: of one nation may be different from the other and there would also be a difference in the way different team members approach and embrace the usage of technology.

(b) Organization: Different salaries, terms of employment etc could also create a source of conflict in the team. The leader has no power in changing these conditions but a greater understanding of the difference would promote team building. Difference may also arise from the varying organizational rules and regulations as well as the approach to such rules (some nations are more “by the book”)

(c) Societal: The functioning as well as the motivation of a military would depend upon factors like whether it is conscription army and the public opinion of the armed forces. There is also a variance in the tolerance to casualties in missions.

Finally, I would like to record that while there were many unique and challenging situations in my assignment, I was able to negotiate most of them by application of the three pronged approach.

Wing Commander Rohit BeriGMAE01 44

10 NATO RTO technical report(2008), “Multinational Military Operations and Intercultural Factors”, pp 157-161