SUMMER 2012 IMQ

Summer 2012Vol. 13, No. 2

Integrating Culture and Management in Global Organizations

How the Media Created the Muslim Monster Myth....3by Jack Shaheen

The Impact of Cultural Diplomacy:Wide Open to Interpretation..................................................6 by John Robert Kelley and Shayna Padovano

Promoting Culturally ResponsiveHealth Communication.............................................................9by Maria De Jesus

Intercultural Challenges in German-AmericanCommunication...........................................................................12by Uta Kremer

Mobile Phones as Cultural Tools:An Arabian Example..................................................................14by Najma Al Zidjaly and Cynthia Gordon

Cultural Intelligence: Why Every Leader Needs It......18by David Livermore, Linn Van Dyne, and Soon Ang

It’s Not Us, It’s Me: Why We Need More Me-Time......22by Grace Yoo

In This Issue...

Intercultural Management Quarterly

2 Intercultural Management Quarterly

From the Editor STAFFPublisher: Dr. Gary R. WeaverManaging Editor: Marc Rambeau

Editorial Review Board: Dan Deming, Annmarie McGillicuddy, Adam Mendelson, Darrel Onizuka, Chris Saenger, Karen Santiago, Gary Weaver, Sherry Zarabi

Intercultural Management Quarterly is published by the Intercultural Management Institute at American University. IMQ combines original research con-ducted in the field of intercultural management with the applied perspectives of industry experts, profes-sors and students.

SUbMiSSioNSProfessionals, scholars, and students are invited to submit articles of 1,000–2,000 words on issues related to the study and practice of intercultural management. Articles must be innovative and con-tribute to knowledge in the field but should avoid overly academic jargon. Footnotes or endnotes are discouraged except in the case of direct quotations or citations. Each submission is refereed by the mem-bers of the Editorial Review Board. Accepted pieces are subject to editing.

REPRoDUCTioNNo part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the express written permission of the publication manager. Please contact the managing editor for reprint availability.

CoNTACTIntercultural Management QuarterlyIntercultural Management Institute

4400 Massachusetts Avenue NorthwestWashington, District of Columbia 20016

Phone: 202.885.6436Fax: 202.885.1331

[email protected]

© 2012 Intercultural Management Quarterly

Dear readers,

Hello! Welcome to the Summer 2012 issue of Inter-cultural Management Quarterly. It’s a full issue, and I hope you enjoy this quarter’s lineup as much as I do.

First, we hear from two past IMQ contributors, Jack Shaheen and John Robert Kelley. Shaheen re-visits the theme of his Winter 2004 article, “Holly-wood’s War on ‘Reel’ Bad Arabs,” while Kelley teams up with Shayna Padovano to discuss the difficulty of measuring the impact of cultural diplomacy.

Then, Maria De Jesus shares some of her research on what it means to be culturally responsive in health communication with immigrant patients. Uta Kremer follows up with a look at the intercultural is-sues that can crop up when Germans and Americans work together (and how to address them).

Next, we hear from two collaborative groups. First, Najma Al Zidjaly and Cynthia Gordon discuss their research on the use of cell phones as “cultural tools” in Oman; then, David Livermore, Linn Van Dyne and Soon Ang introduce us to the concept of cultural intelligence (CQ).

Finally, Grace Yoo rounds out the issue by provid-ing a humorous take on why we all could use a little more “me-time.”

Be sure to check out this fall’s Skills Institutes, as well as the exciting speakers we have planned for the Annual IMI Conference on Intercultural Relations this coming spring. Check out www.imi.american.edu for registration and for more information.

As always, feel free to send your feedback my way!

Marc RambeauManaging Editor

W A S H I N G T O N , D CAMERICAN UNIVERSItY

3Summer 2012

How the Media Created the Muslim Monster Myth

by Jack Shaheen

Jack Shaheen is the author of Reel Bad Arabs, a former CBS news consultant on Middle East affairs, and Profes-sor Emeritus of Mass Communications from Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. Shaheen has received two Fulbright teaching awards and was a Distinguished Visiting Scholar at New York University’s Hagop Kev-orkian Center for Near Eastern Studies. Other books include: The tV Arab (1984) and Arab and Muslim Stereotyping in American Popular Culture (1997). Shaheen also wrote an article entitled “Hollywood’s War on ‘Reel’ Bad Arabs,” which first appeared in the Winter 2004 edition of IMQ.

You can hit an Arab free; they’re free enemies, free vil-lains—where you couldn’t do it to a Jew or you can’t do it to a black anymore.

—Sam Keen, author of Faces of the Enemy

In 1918 American movie audiences were treated to their first major silver-screen glimpse of a reel bad Arab. In tarzan of the Apes, the first of six popular

tarzan films to vilify Arabs, viewers got to see brutal Arab slave masters whipping African slaves and forc-ing their kidnapped Englishman “to endure ten years of agony,” all the while brandishing guns and scruffy goa-tees. It was quite a debut.

Three years later, with the release of Rudolph Valen-tino’s box-office hit The Sheik (1921), audiences got their second sustained peek at big-screen Arabs. Still brutal and erratic, these Arabs had the added awfulness of being lecherous and rapacious. “When an Arab sees a woman he wants, he takes her,” promised the titillating blurb on The Sheik’s movie posters.

For four decades I have been tracking these kinds of images of Arabs and Muslims in more than 1,200 fea-ture films and hundreds of television programs, from dramas and news documentaries to comedies and chil-dren’s cartoons. Along the way, I’ve discovered that anti-Arab and anti-Muslim stereotypes have a long and powerful history in American popular culture. Con-stantly repeated, these damaging portraits have ma-nipulated viewers’ thoughts and feelings, conditioning them to ratchet up the forces of rage and unreason. Make no mistake: fictional narratives have the capacity to alter reality. As the Florentine philosopher Niccolò

Machiavelli reminds us, “The great majority of mankind are...more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.”

American images of Arabs and Muslims have remained remarkably consistent over the decades. Despite the di-versity of Arab and Muslim experience, reel Arab wom-en have appeared mostly mute and submissive—belly dancers, bundles in black and beasts of burden. Arab men have fared no better, appearing as Bedouin bandits, sinister sheiks, comic buffoons and weapon-wielding terrorists. As a result, when readers open the pages of Holy Terror, the 2011 graphic novel by comic book icon Frank Miller, the warped messages they receive about bloodthirsty Muslims read almost like companion draw-ings for John Buchan’s 1916 novel Greenmantle. (Sample Buchan line: “Islam is a fighting creed, and the mullah still stands in the pulpit with the Quran in one hand and a drawn sword in the other.”) And my late friend Edward Said’s 1980 Nation essay “Islam Through West-ern Eyes” feels as relevant today as it did thirty years ago. “So far as the United States seems to be concerned,” he wrote, “it is only a slight overstatement to say that Mos-lems and Arabs are essentially seen as either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of...the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life has entered the aware-ness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have instead [are] crude...cari-catures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.”

And yet, despite the consistency of these representa-tions, the last decade has brought profound and criti-cally important changes in the ways Muslims and Arabs are portrayed in the United States. The catalyzing event


How the Media...

was September 11, when nineteen Al Qaeda terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans. It was an attack designed, cruelly and perversely, to inflict maximum cinematic as well as real-life horror, and in its traumatized aftermath, the shape of American fantasies began to shift. Added to the Arab threat was the Muslim threat, and as this new threat materialized, it also intensified. While anti-Arab and anti-Muslim imagery had long been part of the background noise of American bigotry, Arabs and Mus-lims now became the chief bogeys of our most paranoid fantasies. They were no longer simply some Evil Other From Over There; now they were the Evil Other From Over There and Here, wild- eyed supervillains in the on-going American epic of good and evil.

to put a sharper point on it: in a 1977 60 Minutes spe-cial titled “The Arabs Are Coming,” Morley Safer warned that Arabs were “invading” by buying up US businesses and farmland; in 1990 The National Review sounded a similar alarm in a cover story titled “The Muslims Are Coming! The Muslims Are Coming!” accompanied by the requisite picture of marauding men on camels. to-day’s media-makers, by contrast, have dispensed with the future tense altogether, as well as anything as nonthreat-ening or absurd as camels. Instead, they drape their Mus-lims in shredded American flags and shriek, The Muslims have arrived and are about to destroy us! Or, as Newsweek blared from the newsstands in June 2003, “Al Qaeda in America: How the terrorists Are Recruiting—and Plot-ting—Here.”

This change happened overnight, or so it seemed, as scores of programs began displaying Muslim Americans and Americans with Arab roots as “terrorists,” falling into the stale trap of “seen one, seen ‘em all.” These “ter-rorists” waged holy wars against their fellow Americans from sleeper cells in Los Angeles and mosques in Wash-ington. Series such as 24, The Unit, The Agency, NCIS,

Sleeper Cell, Threat Matrix and Sue Thomas: F.B.Eye ex-ploited post-9/11 fears, pummeling home myths that made the profiling, imprisonment, extradition, torture and even death of these one-dimensional characters more palatable to the public. Producers made few, if any, distinctions between American Arabs and Arabs, between American Muslims and Muslims, as if it were impossible to be truly American and Arab or Muslim.

This kind of viral paranoia has a long and sordid his-tory in this country, as Richard Hofstadter persuasively argued in his 1964 essay “The Paranoid Style in Ameri-can Politics.” Fueled by the “animosities and passions of a small minority,” the paranoid style has helped to

stir many of our most virulent “scares”: from the anti-Masonic and anti-Catholic movements of the nineteenth century to the more recent “Yellow Peril” and “Red Menace.” And now, of course, there’s the “Green

Menace” (green being the color of Islam) with its high-pitched paranoia about 1.6 billion Muslims that serves not only to prime American audiences for military ag-gression—as Said suggested in his Nation essay—but make hefty sums of money for the media industry.

At the forefront of this effort is a series of well-funded, politically motivated campaigns dedicated to painting Is-lam as an inherently violent and savage religion. These campaigns are the work of a small group of wealthy do-nors, misinformation specialists like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and groups of interconnected anti-Is-lam organizations: Steven Emerson’s Investigative Proj-ect on terrorism, Daniel Pipes’s Middle East Forum and so forth. together they pound home the myth that mainstream Muslims have “terrorist” ties, that Islam is the new global ideological menace and that Muslims are intent on destroying Western civilization. Then they spread their message far and wide.

Consider Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West (2005), the first film made by the Clarion Fund, a pro-Israel nonprofit organization. Steeped in hatred,

In an environment in which 62 percent of Americans have never met a Muslim, these representations matter.

5Summer 2012

the film uses propaganda to convince the masses—in-cluding law enforcement officials, military personnel and public servants at every level—of its righteousness by systematically dehumanizing Muslims as the evil, alien “other.” The film’s frighteningly Islamophobic message also draws parallels between Islam and Nazism. Shock-ingly, the fund persuaded major newspapers to distrib-ute some 28 million DVD copies to their readers, free of charge, which were inserted in more than seventy pa-pers—predominantly in swing states—before the 2008 presidential election. Only the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and a handful of other newspapers refused to distribute the DVD. (More recently, the Clarion Fund released The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America, which was screened before nearly 1,500 New York City police of-ficers, and Iranium, which warns of an Islamic nuclear threat.)

In an environment in which 62 percent of Americans have never met a Muslim, these representations mat-ter. After all, the media mediate. Is it any wonder, then, that nearly half of us (49 percent) say the values of Islam are at odds with “American values”? Or that 45 percent of Americans say they would be uncomfortable with a mosque being built near their home? Left unchallenged, the continuous barrage of reel Islamophobic imagery makes it difficult for some Americans to accept real Muslims into our society—a situation that was painfully illustrated by the protests surrounding the reality tV show All-American Muslim.

In considering how to begin removing the sting of Is-lamophobia from the media, let’s return for a moment to Sam Keen’s stunning statement: “You can hit an Arab free; they’re free enemies, free villains—where you couldn’t do it to a Jew or you can’t do it to a black any-more.” This was true in 1986, when Keen made the ob-servation to the Association of Editorial Cartoonists, and it is all the more true today.

to some, dispensing with this stereotype may seem an impossible task. Yet openness to change is an American tradition and the strength of our society. The path ahead

Continued on page 8...

intercultural Management institute

Skills InstitutesFall 2012

Creative Arts and InterculturalConflict Resolution

September 22–23 with Michelle LebaronDirector, Program on Dispute Resolution, Univer-

sity of british Columbia

Presentation SkillsSeptember 29–30 with Dan Deming

Director, intercultural Management institute

Intercultural Training and Facilitationoctober 6–7 with Ray Leki

Director, Transition Center of the Foreign Service institute, U.S. Department of State

Intercultural Leadership Competenceoctober 27–28 with bram Groen

Professor, School of international Service

Crisis Public DiplomacyNovember 3–4 with Rob Kelley

Professor, School of international Service

Building Mediator Capacityin a Multicultural Context

November 17–18 with Gururaj KumarAssociate, KonTerra Group and Conflict Manage-

ment Consultant, ADR Vantageand Jared ordway

instructor, Advanced Mediation Practice and Eth-ics, Woodbury Mediation institute

www.imi.american.edufor schedule and registration


The Impact of Cultural Diplomacy:Wide open to interpretation

by John Robert Kelleyand Shayna Padovano

No matter how insignificant the thing you have to do, do it as well as you can… For it will be by those small things that you will be judged.

—Mahatma Gandhi

the late political scientist Milton Cummings defined cultural diplomacy as “the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of

culture among nations and their people to foster mutual understanding.” Cultural diplomats needing daily affir-mation of their important work might do well to em-brace Gandhi’s statement. As a cultural diplomat in his own right, the arc of his long life and sudden death il-lustrates what may come of delving deep into the cultur-al realm with the intent of altering it. Cultures are not static and change comes about slowly. time is not the only consideration; there are so many factors involved in cultural change that there is no guarantee it will be in-herently positive. However, the political realm does not take kindly to slow change, nor does it possess the pa-tience for unsatisfactory outcomes.

Cultural diplomats face the unenviable quandary of delivering, in a relatively short amount of time, percep-tible outcomes—for it is upon the merits of achieving outcomes that they are judged. Attitudinal change, in-creased favorability, fostering friendlier atmospheres for policy implementation—these tend to be the near-term interests of government. Meanwhile, non-governmental actors stress mutual understanding, building trust, and

a more genuine notion of exchange that reaps dividends over the long-term.

In both cases, the work of cultural diplomats ultimate-ly begins and ends with the “small things.” Gestures of goodwill, study abroad and intercultural collaborations of all kinds seem like logical paths toward mutual un-derstanding, and a nation with global ambitions that ab-stains from such activities would surely stand out. But it would be wrong to suggest that governments back into cultural diplomacy for nothing more than appearances, as recent adoptees China and Qatar demonstrate. They believe the sum of these activities will yield a political dividend somewhere down the line. They also do so in blind faith, because there is no way of knowing for cer-tain if launching an immense network of cultural cen-ters, as China has, or hosting a marquee international sporting event, like when the World Cup comes to Qa-tar in 2022, will bring these nations closer to their pol-icy objectives. But they will do them well, nevertheless. And this brings us to the most pressing question on the minds of cultural diplomats: for all the effort expended, how does one measure impact? Where is the “god” in these “small things”?

Unqualified Success?

It may seem like a long time ago now, but it was in fact quite recently that all the animosity between the United States and North Korea was suspended, for one night, in late February 2008. Prior to this time, the latest phase of the interminable Six Party talks work-ing on the peaceful disarmament of North Korea con-cluded without significant progress and with another

John Robert Kelley is an assistant professor in the School of International Service. He received his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2007, and his dissertation, “From Monologue to Dialogue: U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Post-9/11 Era,” is currently being revised into a book. Dr. Kelley previously served as a Program Officer in the Office of Foreign Missions at the U.S. Department of State, and was an intercultural business consultant to American and Japanese firms. His recent publications include a contribution to The Rout-ledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2008) and articles in Orbis and The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. Shayna Padovano is an M.A. candidate at American University pursuing a concentration in Cultural and Pub-lic Diplomacy. She holds a B.F.A. in Theatre Arts from Boston University, and spent several years as a profes-sional actor in New York City before beginning her graduate studies.

7Summer 2012

stalemate in the works. But in an act reminiscent of the “ping-pong diplomacy” that preceded President Richard Nixon’s landmark visit to China in 1972, the New York Philharmonic Orchestra accepted the invitation of the North Korean regime to play a concert in Pyongyang. It was the largest American contingent to visit the coun-try since the Korean War. Controversy surrounded the Orchestra’s decision, but in the end exultation prevailed after the moving finale, “Arirang,” the achingly beauti-ful Korean folk song that brought a full theatre of one thousand North Korean spectators, many in tears, to their feet for a five-minute standing ovation.

What did it achieve? For those in attendance, the significance was palpable. The American guests were equally moved by the emotional performance. North Korea’s vice-minister of culture called the concert “an important occasion to open a chapter of mutual under-standing between the two countries.” Others were not so sure. “History suggests orchestral diplomacy may be of little real relevance,” remarked a subsequent appraisal in The Economist. “At the end of the day, we consider this concert to be a concert and it’s not a diplomatic coup,” quipped then-White House Press Secretary Dana Perino.

In its earliest renditions, cultural diplomacy often in-volved “mission”-style displays of cultural figures and artifacts within foreign environments. More recently, however, practitioners of cultural diplomacy have toyed with a more collaborative format in which representa-tives from distinct groups work together to solve shared problems. The notion that “exchange” takes place quite easily connotes a level of fair dealing or “tit-for-tat” spirit of reciprocity, when in fact sponsoring states demand gains instead of losses. According to Cynthia Schneider of Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service, cultural diplomacy is above all a tool for exercis-ing and acquiring “soft” power, which breeds permissive foreign constituencies through the power of persuasion.

Another persistent quality of cultural diplomacy is its reliance on citizens to assume the bulk of activities in the belief that they will present the most apolitical, and ultimately the most genuine and attractive aspects of the

sponsoring culture. Carried out in this way, cultural di-plomacy expresses a certain confidence both in citizens to exude qualities of universal appeal as well as in audi-ences to find those qualities appealing.

In no small measure, the nature of diplomatic work overall is intrinsically cultural, found in both the “high” platforms of performance and visual arts to the popu-lar domains of language and mass media. The history of cultural diplomacy by the United States as a soft power tool to win trust and respect abroad includes many no-table initiatives, ranging from its various exchange pro-grams—most notably the Fulbright—to arts exhibits and musical performance tours such as jazz artists dur-ing the Cold War and the orchestral visit to North Ko-rea.

Universal Good?

The belief that such experiences can transcend barri-ers between peoples and ignite international coopera-tion encourages cultural diplomacy between nations, yet within this act of sharing lie inherent risks. Cultural diplomacy is not just the sharing of culture for its own sake; embedded within the act lies a calculated politi-cal objective. With this in mind, many aspects of a cul-tural program can go wrong. If the United States wants to encourage democracy through hip hop dance, for in-stance, it must be sure that the environment is amenable to this type of import. If not, the program might fail or take a turn in an unplanned—and detrimental—direc-tion. In this case, an act that was considered a normative good would not necessarily be so.

However, if a program does prove “successful,” its ef-fects could take a long period of time to manifest. This lack of immediate return on investment can lead to lukewarm or questionable sentiments toward cultural exchange programs and what “good” they can actually do. Yet, even taking such inherent risks into consider-ation, the export of culture through diplomatic channels is still an essential tool for relationship building. Cul-tural diplomacy, inside or outside the soft power frame, thrives on the multiplier effect of positive association: a nation invests its culture and acts of goodwill to fos-


The impact...

ter trust, understanding, and establish strong relational ties that form the foundation for future collaboration in other sectors.

to warrant such a long-term investment, nations need to be sure they are headed in the right direction. The United Kingdom’s British Council and the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs within the U.S. De-partment of State are two institutions that are develop-ing more detailed instruments for measuring cultural program outcomes.

The British Council recently released a report en-titled trust Pays, a multi-tiered study that examined how cultural programming increased trust between the UK and other nations. The study emphasized how the development of trust through cultural programs influ-enced other sectors; for example, higher levels of trust were associated with a greater propensity to engage in economic relations with the UK. Additionally, higher levels of trust showed an increased willingness to travel to the UK and engage with British citizens abroad. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs also recently released a report evaluating its journalism and media programs. The report contains an extensive framework that highlights program-specific outcomes, the most tangible of which asks whether or not participants in the program returned to their home countries and instituted any organizational change within their countries’ media outlets.

These examples emphasize the ability that larger or-ganizations have to use extensive methodologies and resources in order to assess the success of cultural pro-grams. However, there are still additional questions that are not being asked, even within more extensive program evaluations. Should there be more investiga-tion into the durability of the personal change that takes place as a result of cultural diplomacy? What could the threshold be for a reversal of this positive change? The absence of this kind of evaluation casts a shadow over any claim that cultural diplomacy is working for both sponsors and audiences. What research that does exist is unfortunately limited to larger institutions. More must be done.

may be littered with ingrained, prejudicial precedents, but I believe these baleful portraits will be shattered, one image at a time. Young scholars and artists will lead the way, creating inventive new portraits that depict Arabs and Muslims as neither saints nor devils but as fellow human beings, with all the strengths and frailties that condition implies. Bold leaders and audiences of con-science will make it more costly, morally and politically, for the media to demean a whole population. And as Americans begin to experience the humanity of Muslims and Arabs of all beliefs, backgrounds, opinions and cul-tures, we too will regain some of our lost humanity. i

This article first appeared in the July 2-9, 2012 edition of The Nation. It has been reproduced here with permission from the copyright holder.

How the Media...continued from page 5

If we begin with the assumption that all cultural ex-change programs seek to achieve aspects of similar over-arching goals, such as fostering mutual understanding, building trust, encouraging expression and empowering individuals, we must ask how the “small things” lead to real and mutually beneficial changes. Past and pres-ent metrics often rely on the use of testimonials from participants in a program as data to be interpreted. This data is mined for evidence that may illustrate changes in thinking toward the host nation, a breakdown of pre-conceived notions, and the development of increased af-fection for and identification with the nation of interest.

Yet, we must question whether such evidence is suf-ficient to draw larger conclusions about the success, or lack thereof, of a particular program. It is necessary to continue to explore more refined and structured meth-odologies—methodologies that can extract multi-dimensional data to help determine to what degree programs do (or do not) achieve their goals, and what the ripple effects of such change may be. i

9Summer 2012

Biomedicine tends to focus on one-way, indi-vidualized strategies, and privileges mainstream Western understandings of health over less “ac-

cepted” paradigms. However, conventional practices and perspectives do not always “fit” the realities of immi-grants from diverse cultural and ethnic groups who face enormous social, linguistic, economic, and health care barriers. Health providers, therefore, are increasingly in-terested in developing more culturally responsive—and, thus, more effective—health communication strategies that can facilitate interactions with these patient popula-tions. This article examines health promoter perspectives on effective cross-cultural health communication strate-gies with immigrant patients from a wide range of cul-tures.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines health promoters as “members of communities who work either for pay or as volunteers in association with the local health care system in both urban and ru-ral environments and usually share ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, and life experiences with the com-munity members they serve.” They have a long history of providing public health services in many different cultures and countries, especially among groups that have been denied adequate health care, such as minor-ity and socio-economically disadvantaged populations in resource-poor neighborhoods.

These health promoters form a bridge between ethni-cally diverse immigrant populations and health service delivery systems; they also facilitate appropriate use of health resources by providing outreach and cultural

linkages to the communities they serve. They are critical resources in improving health care access and provider-patient communication, as well as providing health edu-cation and culturally responsive health care to members of underserved communities. In part, their effectiveness within these communities is due to their ability to un-derstand community problems in context, to develop innovative health interventions appropriate to that con-text, and to translate these interventions into practice, thus responding creatively to local needs and individuals’ realities.

Building Relationality

My community-based qualitative research was ground-ed in an emic or idiographic approach to research, which “concerns itself with the specific and unique richness of a phenomenon, so that we understand the particular rath-er than the general.”1 I have drawn the findings reported here from interviews with health promoters at different community health organizations, who described effec-tive strategies in their work with multicultural immi-grant patients.

Building relationality—attending to the effects of patient-provider interactions to develop trust between patients and providers—is the core and overarching cat-egory that links all of the others. Health promoters de-scribed many effective health communication strategies that they adopt to build relationality with patients; these strategies, described below and accompanied by repre-sentative quotations from health promoters, can inform all health providers:

Understanding health holistically. Health promot-ers’ definitions of health are informed by context, which contributes to an understanding of health in broad terms: “Health is not simply preventing disease on a physical level; it is about balancing the stresses that dam-age us mentally, physically, and emotionally. Health not only relates to men and women at an individual level, but it is also concerned with what is happening in the community and with what makes a community healthy.”

Promoting Culturally Responsive Health Communication

by Maria De Jesus

Dr. Maria De Jesus is an assistant professor in the School of International Service at American University. She specializes in health inequalities with a focus on cross-cultural communication and health promotion. She was a Yerby post-doctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health and the Center for Community-Based Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston; she has also taught at Boston University and Boston College, where she earned her Ph.D. and M.A.


Engaging with patients in a more egalitarian way. Effective health promoters challenge the asymmetric power dynamics that exist in mainstream health provid-er-patient relationships: “It’s just like never putting your-self in a higher position than they are. It’s really breaking down your language to words that they can understand and showing them that you are sitting down at the same table. Patients tell me information and I pass on infor-mation to them.”

Purposefully self-disclosing. Health promoters share relevant information about their life experiences as a way to build reciprocal relationships with patients: “I share about myself so that there is a bond. For example, I may share that I am a parent too with a patient so he or she sees that we share a similar role.”

Being an ally to the patient. Health promoters dem-onstrate that they are “on the patient’s side”: “Stance matters. If you are open and an ally to your patients, they will less likely shun you. They will accept you as someone who is trying to help them and will open up with you.”

Being non-judgmental. It is important for health pro-moters not to convey negative judgment toward patients via words, facial expressions, or body language: “All pa-tients have strengths, and I think our job is to work with their strengths. When patients do something right, it could be the smallest of things; we should point that out to them.”

Being compassionate. Health promoters express a sense of common humanity with their patients: “You have to make yourself human to do this type of work with patients well.”

Being empathic. Health promoters also try to under-stand their patients from a patient’s perspective: “I don’t think you can do this work without having empathy and trying to put yourself in the patient’s position.”

Being humble. Health promoters demonstrate a sense of humility in their roles: “I think not seeing the situa-

tion as being about ourselves, for example, thinking ‘Let me shine, let me do this because I’m going to be recog-nized.’”

Being authentic. Health promoters need to be com-pletely honest with their patients, even about very sensi-tive topics: “There are ways that you can address patients without offending them, but at the same time, not su-garcoating or anything like that is important.”

Being consistent. Health promoters also point out that following through is vital in creating and sustaining relationships with patients: “If I say I am going to follow up about a specific topic, then I do it.”

Continually learning about the community. Health promoters describe the need to educate themselves con-tinually about issues that were pertinent to the com-munity in which they work: “I learned how to work effectively with patients through trial and error, having to learn that maybe what I knew about the culture was not everything that I needed to know, and learning from other people who had experience with a particular com-munity.”

Establishing trust. trust facilitates the process where-by patients can communicate openly, directly, and hon-estly with the health promoters: “For many immigrants, the health promoter’s credibility has a lot to do with trust. Once the patient sees that that you are genuinely a person who is here to work with them on specific goals and they trust you, they will be more open with you.”

Demonstrating respect. Respect entails not only be-ing polite in word or deed with patients, but also vali-dating their feelings and experiences: “Some immigrant patients have had negative experiences with health pro-fessionals in the past, which has affected the work of other health providers. to overcome these histories, one needs to validate what the patient went through and try a different approach.”

Learning from different knowledge sources. Apart from medical information, health promoters discuss

Promoting...

11Summer 2012

drawing from four different sources of knowledge to in-form their health promotion practice with community members:

• Cultural knowledge. Developing knowledge of an immigrant community’s way of life and the sys-tems of communication such as language, religion, rituals, beliefs, and norms of behavior.

• Experiential knowledge. Knowledge gained through experience in working with immigrant patients over time.

• Spiritual/religious knowledge. Religious beliefs, values, and faith, as well as the role of spirituality or religion on the patient’s thinking and behav-ior.

• Sociohistorical knowledge. Having information about the sociohistorical context of the patient’s country of origin, immigration patterns in the U.S., and an understanding of the current situa-tion of the immigrant community in the U.S.

Toward a “Best Practice” Model

Evidently, developing strong relationships with im-migrant patients is important for facilitating culturally responsive health communication. The relational theory of health promotion practice reflects the dynamic health communication strategies through which health pro-moters develop relationships with multicultural immi-grant patients. Such research also contributes to a “best practice” model of reaching ethnically diverse immigrant populations.

Several important implications for health education and research emerge from these interviews. First, health promoters who serve as cultural mediators have a strong role to play in health promotion practice and in the de-velopment of culturally responsive health communica-tion programs and strategies. Second, the process of building relationality with patients should be a priority

topic for health training and educational programs for health providers.

It is important for health providers to be self-reflexive in their practice. They should be aware of the power dy-namics in relationships with patients and strive to create contexts that facilitate mutual sharing of information—especially in the current climate, where provider-patient dynamics are increasingly shifting towards more active patient models. Health promoters also view becoming culturally responsive—that is, to continuously educate themselves about the patients and communities they serve—as a core responsibility. Relying solely on theo-retical and biomedical knowledge is not sufficient. Thus, institutional training and educational programs for health providers should focus on facilitating a process of continual learning about the cultural communities they serve.

Conclusion

Health promoters’ perspectives challenge universal-ist theories of health communication and promotion that focus primarily on one-way, individual-level strate-gies and privilege mainstream Western understandings of health. Although Western biomedicine places ulti-mate responsibility for health on the individual, immi-grant patients’ ability to make health-related choices is constrained by social, linguistic, and economic barri-ers. Therefore, health communication and promotion strategies and programs must be responsive to the con-textual realities of patients’ lives. Health professionals need to equip themselves with relational, cross-cultural health communication strategies to effectively interact with immigrant populations, and there are clear demo-graphic and ethical imperatives that call for this type of training. i

Notes

1. L.C. Watson and M.B Watson-Franke, Interpreting Life His-tories: An Anthropological Inquiry (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1985).


employees felt criticized all the way through. Their new bosses would never say anything when they did well—which they interpreted as constant disapproval. On top of this, their German managers’ critiques were often very blunt. Puzzlement led to frustration, which led to res-ignations. These were not the working conditions the Americans had expected.

The Daimler employees sent to the U.S., on the other hand, were quite happy. So much praise and no criti-cism—or was there? The German style of leadership and motivation is fundamentally different from the Ameri-can one. German managers do not praise verbally; they simply say nothing when things go well. This is clearly understood by fellow Germans as approval of their per-formance, on a given task or in general. If things go wrong, however, Germans do not hold back and they criticize directly. It is their understanding of efficient leadership.

Coming from different backgrounds in which different communication strate-gies applied, with distinct coding and decoding “rules” for praise and criticism, fundamental misunderstandings between

the Americans and Germans occurred. The Americans decoded the German way of praising—saying nothing when things go well—as criticism. There was also plenty of direct verbal criticism. Thus, the Americans felt only criticized, and twice as harshly as they were used to.

The Germans, on the other hand, coming from a back-ground in which praise is normally given implicitly only in the form of a lack of criticism, were not familiar with the frequency of verbal praise common in the U.S. Not being used either to the way in which Americans deliver disapproval—“sandwiched” in a constructive way be-tween two praising statements—they simply did not get that they were criticized at all.

Why do German managers seem to have such a hard time praising their employees? Why are Americans al-ways complimentary, even if they seek to communicate criticism? The answer to these questions lies in the fun-

How does an American executive critique oth-ers? Most likely, she says something nice or en-couraging, inserts the difficult or critical part,

and ends with yet more praise: I really appreciate the work you’re doing. Maybe you ought to put a bit more emphasis on X and Y, but I admire the way you’ve done Z.

We are mostly not aware of the everyday communi-cation strategies we employ, but we all use them. We are generally able to understand and be understood by others—within our own cultures. Outside our cultural comfort zones, however, our standard strategies do not necessarily work. Even though people might be aware of the existence of intercultural differences, taking it to heart and trying to overcome our own culture-bound communication patterns in an international setting ap-pears to be next to impossible. It comes as no surprise, then, that companies seeking to expand internationally run into trouble.

The oft-quoted experience of Daimler Chrysler illus-trates this well. The American leadership style includes constant praising. Well done! and Thanks for your effort! are phrases used frequently to give positive feedback to employees and to motivate them to continue working well. Should there be a problem, the manager tends to say nothing—the employee understands implicitly that he has done something wrong or performed below ex-pectations.

When Chrysler’s U.S. staff was sent to Germany to work for Daimler in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the

Intercultural Challenges in German-American Communication

by Uta Kremer

When Chrysler’s U.S. staff was sent to Germany to work for Daimler, the employees felt criti-cized all the way through.

Dr. Uta Kremer has taught international career development workshops for over a decade, includ-ing regularly at the Leipzig University School of Management. She is a specialist in German-American cross-cultural work practices.

13Summer 2012

damentally different understanding of credibility among Americans and Germans. to Germans, credibility means being serious, keeping a distance, and being “honest” and straightforward. Within their particular culture of communication, Germans express these attributes by saying only what they think, without adding anything “extra” to make someone feel good.

Americans, on the other hand, generally want to be liked. They say nice things to have them reciprocated. Appearance is what counts—a smile, a compliment, overstatement. People talk to each other easily, and small

talk is no issue. This, again, is different from the Ger-mans, who take every How are you? as a serious question to be answered honestly (and at length).

As a result, communication strategies also shape people’s perceptions of each other. Without an ability to code or decode in a way that can be heard and un-derstood by our counterparts, miscommunication and misperception are bound to happen. At best, to Ameri-cans, then, Germans may appear to be too honest to be polite; while for Germans, Americans seem too polite to be honest. i

14th AnnualIMI Conference on

Intercultural RelationsMarch 14–15, 2013

With more than 30 workshop sessions to choose from, the Annual Conference offers exciting hands-on experience to a diverse group of practitioners, schol-ars and students.

To register, visit www.imi.american.edu

Featured Keynote Speakers:

Bryan A. StevensonExecutive Director, Equal Justice Initiative• MacArthur Foundation “Genius” Award recipient• Successfully argued Miller v. Alabama at the Su-

preme Court, banning life-without-parole sentenc-es for children in June 2012

• His TED Talk, We Need to Talk About an Injustice, had one of the loudest & longest standing ovations in TED history

Dr. Janet BennettCo-Founder and Executive Director,Intercultural Communication Institute• Chairs iCi/ University of the Pacific Masters of Arts

in intercultural Relations program• Co-edited third edition of Handbook of Intercultural

Training• Expert in developmental “layered” intercultural

training and adjustment processes

CONNECT. DISCOVER. ADVANCE.

INTERCULTURAL MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE · SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE · AMERICAN UNIVERSITY


Most scholarly research on mobile phones—conducted largely in North American, Euro-pean, and Asian contexts—suggests that they

facilitate social interaction, enable multitasking, serve as fashion accessories, and can even become a nuisance. We know that people use mobile phones, and smart-phones in particular, in various ways. They make voice calls, send text messages, surf the Internet, manage their schedules, take and share photos, and so on. But a mo-bile phone is not simply a piece of technology: it is a cultural tool.

Cultural tools, according to linguist Ron Scollon, are material or symbolic “mediational means” that people use to accomplish or communicate social actions. Be-cause all cultural tools have histories, they facilitate cer-tain actions (i.e., have affordances) while constraining others (i.e., have limitations). In this way, cultural tools not only affect how people use them, but are also affect-ed by specific uses.

For example, in some African and Arabian cultures, it makes practical and economic sense to use mobile phones as beepers. Mobile phones offer an affordance that makes this beeper function possible: One can call another and hang up before the other answers; the per-son called gets a “missed call” message that can, depend-ing on prior agreement, be understood to indicate safe arrival or even, “Come pick me up.” This cultural prac-tice does not readily translate in the American context of unlimited voice and texting plans; Americans typically do not take advantage of this affordance.

Conceptualizing mobile phones as cultural tools en-hances our ability to understand how people of vari-ous cultural backgrounds orient to and use them, thus helping reduce the likelihood of intercultural miscom-munication when mobile phones are at play. Examples from two case studies, conducted ten years apart in the Middle Eastern country of Oman, demonstrate how a “cultural tools” approach lends new insight into mobile phones as culturally situated, an understanding that has the potential to mitigate problems in intercultural edu-cation and training.

The culture of Oman is generally characterized as col-lectivist, and mobile phone use is rapidly on the rise there. Part of contemporary Omani collectivism is a fo-cus on the family, rather than the tribe; this leads out-siders to find Omani culture particularly impenetrable. Even so, Oman could stand as a fair representative of much of the Arabian Gulf region—it manages a tension between modernization and tradition, and features a modest economy as well as moderate political and reli-gious stances. The examples we consider are drawn from research conducted by the first author, a native Omani and linguistics professor in Oman, as part of a collab-orative project by both authors examining mobile phone practices across cultures.

Mobile phone use in the Arab world started booming in the early 2000s, when the first case study was con-ducted. Researchers observed that Arabian youth quick-ly adapted their mobile phone use to “blur the clearly marked lines in the Arab Muslim world between the public and private,” defying customs by connecting with the opposite sex.1 For economic reasons, prepaid card systems were and still are widespread. text messaging was and continues to be very popular, likely because it

Mobile Phones as Cultural Tools:An Arabian Example

by Najma Al Zidjalyand Cynthia Gordon

Dr. Najma Al Zidjaly is an associate professor of linguistics and intercultural communication at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman. Her publications focus on culture, social media, and Arab identity. Al Zidjaly is also a pub-lic intellectual in Oman, with essays published in The New York times, times of Oman, and Muscat Daily. Dr. Cynthia Gordon, Associate Professor in the Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies at Syracuse University, is author of Making Meanings, Creating Family: Intertextuality and Framing in Family Discourse (Oxford, 2009). She is interested in intersections between family communication, health communication, culture, and electronically mediated discourse.

15Summer 2012

is private and covert; the Arab world might be described as a “text messaging culture.” The case studies reveal how Omanis, and young Omanis in particular, use mobile phones to exercise autonomy, challenge customs and au-thority, and to accentuate cultural unity.

Defying Islamic Prohibitions

In 2002, Al Zidjaly conducted a case study analysis of how young people, especially young women, were using mobile phones in Oman.2 What she found in her ethno-graphic study is that young people used mobile phones not only to mark their freedom and independence, something valued by youth across many cultures, but also to create an underground discourse. They used mo-bile phones as a tool to get around cultural prohibitions regarding interactions with members of the opposite sex, which are restricted in traditional Islamic cultures and controlled by parents. This is particularly important for young Omani women, whose independence in male-female relations is traditionally most constrained. Young people also used mobile phones to discuss taboo topics such as sex.

According to this case study, boys (and some girls) would call random numbers or send random text mes-sages in the hope of connecting with an age-appropriate member of the opposite sex. If the two people enjoyed one other’s voices or texts, then a mobile relationship be-tween them would ensue. In many (indeed, most) cas-es, break-up and heartache would follow due to a more pleasing voice or more cleverly formulated text from an-other random caller.

Young people thus were taking advantage of some of the affordances of mobile phones: they are owned by individuals rather than families or households, they are portable, they can be used to contact potentially anyone, and they can be used unobtrusively. In doing so, young Omani women and men not only expanded their social circles, but also defied the cultural and religious conven-tions of Oman.

The practice conflicted not only with existing conven-tions but also with the wishes of the Omani government, which owned Omantel, the sole telecommunication company at the time. The government found itself in a double bind—on one hand, it wanted to promote the use of technology among young people (and especially women) in line with its greater development goals; on the other hand, it did not want technology to change the nation’s traditional Islamic practices. Omantel’s solution was to design pre-paid phone cards that indirectly ad-dressed and discouraged these actions. Since most Oma-nis used such cards, they were a convenient way to “send a message.” The newly designed cards depicted phone users in traditional clothing contacting family members.

However, Omani young women continued to use mo-bile phones covertly to facilitate freedom and challenge cultural practices. to this day, they continue to take ad-vantage of the affordance that allows them to connect with anyone, female or male. The government, while not encouraging this practice, has allowed it to continue, in part because of Omani ideologies of government but also because the practice is relatively invisible.

Asserting Individuality

The second case study, which began in 2011, expands on the first. Using survey reports, ethnographic observa-tions, interviews, and artifacts, it examines mobile phone use nationally and in undergraduate classrooms. The preliminary results of this study complement the find-ings of the first in interesting ways. Mobile phones con-tinue to be used to subvert dominant cultural practices, but they are also emerging as tools for the presentation of individual and cultural identity and for developing a sense of collectivity.

to Omanis, the mobile phone is a necessity rather than an accessory. It serves as a status and national identity marker while also having personal value; many Omanis report sleeping with their phones (as in fact do Ameri-cans3). Mobile phones tend to take precedence, in the Arabian Gulf in general, over face-to-face interaction.4 The ensuing lack of face-to-face contact has the poten-


tial, of course, to lead to many problems in both inter-cultural business and social situations.

Some Omanis so greatly fear being without a mobile phone that they have at least two to three, complete with different lines, in case one gets disconnected due to late bill payments (a common occurrence in Oman). Oth-ers have at least two to separate their private and pub-lic lives. typically, one is reserved for family and close friends, and one for students (very popular among uni-versity teachers) or people one meets at superficial social gatherings. For some, especially the young, one phone line is dedicated to texting and chatting—mainly with friends and acquaintances of the opposite sex—and one for family or just for phone calls.

The “meaning” of having multiple mobile phones must be interpreted in its cultural context; in Ameri-can culture, for example, this practice could be errone-ously interpreted as “living a double life.” Further, it is not appropriate in all cultures for mobile phones to be used to connect students and professors. Multiple-phone ownership in Oman, however, has important cultural functions, including enabling people to manage their different social identities and relationships.

By the time an Omani student is in college, he or she usually has two phones with two different numbers. Most children get their first phone by early adolescence (boys around age 10 and girls around age 13); parents take advantage of this fact to (attempt to) keep tabs on their children. They thus benefit from the affordances that mobile phones provide, namely, their portability and the fact that they are always with the child.

Indeed, most Omanis are never far from their phones. However, age and economic differences do exist. Among the young, especially women, a mobile phone serves as a fashion symbol and a marker of personal taste, as it does to young women in Japan (another collectivist cul-ture). to the older generation, mobile phones are status symbols; older people spend money on the latest mobile phones and buy unique phone numbers, either from Omantel directly or on the black market, where a num-

ber with a pleasing or meaningful sequence of numerals can be bought for up to $2,500.

Strengthening Group Identity

Besides using mobile phones to put their individual identities and social status on display, Omanis also use them to accentuate collective cultural identities. For example, mobile phones are used for religious bonding among family members, colleagues, and acquaintances. Every Friday, the holy day of Islam, Omanis send and forward religious greetings via text message. This prac-tice, which has also been noted in other Gulf countries, not only strengthens group identity but also facilitates the creation of new social bonds. Many use these ex-changes to connect with colleagues. Also, it serves to initiate outsiders into the group; sending Friday greeting messages is a sure way for outsiders to establish good re-lationships with Omanis.

As in many Arab countries, mobile phones in Oman also facilitate the sharing of cultural jokes. These jokes, which poke fun at Oman or neighboring Arab countries, accentuate the connections among Omanis and can even create bonds with outsiders—once they come to under-stand the practice. However, it is often misunderstood. Last year, for instance, an Omani official offended a visiting American colleague by repeatedly sending her such jokes. The American interpreted his behavior as racist, inappropriate, and described it as “harassment.” The Omani, however, was simply trying to help her feel welcome by including her in his text messaging group. Omanis use such text messaging groups to build rapport among members of work and hobby groups.

While protesters have used mobile phones and so-cial media to organize anti-government political ac-tion throughout the Arab world, the case is different in Oman. As Al Zidjaly argued in a 2011 op-ed in The New York Times, Omanis actually used mobile phones and text messaging to pacify protests and connect people and their government. For example, many sent positive messages to the Sultan of Oman via social media dur-ing the period of unrest in 2011. This gives credence to

Mobile Phones...

17Summer 2012

the scholarly argument that social media do not make changes—people do. Social media, including mobile phones, serve as cultural tools that social agents use in any manner they choose to create identities and accom-plish other social goals.

Deepening Intercultural Understanding

We suggest that conceptualizing mobile phones as cul-tural tools highlights how people take advantage of the affordances of the technology to accomplish culturally meaningful actions. In the Omani context, these actions include subverting authority, asserting individuality, and creating community.

Of course, it is likely that mobile phone use by people in different cultural groups overlaps in some ways with that of Omanis while diverging in others. When all par-ties share an understanding of cultural practices, com-munication tends to go well. However, when an outsider faces a foreign culture’s communication practices, in-cluding uses of cultural tools like mobile phones, there is great potential for misunderstanding. In highlighting mobile phone practices in contemporary Omani culture, we hope to encourage readers to reflect on how their own cultures shape how they approach and use tools like mobile phones.

For example, teens’ random texting and calling in Oman serves as a valuable exercise in autonomy and testing boundaries; such a practice might be perceived as dangerous by protective American parents. Audience members’ use of phones during college lectures, train-ing seminars, and other formal situations may not reflect disrespect, but rather an innocuous way to stay in touch with the all-important family. A professor and student exchanging phone numbers might be appropriate or not, depending on cultural practices; it can improve student-professor communication in some cultural contexts while being taboo in others. An expensive phone may reflect not only a desire for high technology, but serve as a marker of social status that is highly valued in the culture. Someone in the same room who chooses to text

instead of talk with you may be following the cultural norm, not being rude.

The media tend to highlight problems mobile phones present—such as how they adversely affect teenagers’ sleep patterns or distract students—while simultaneous-ly arguing that mobile phones can cause political revolu-tions and make life better or more efficient. These views treat phones as technological material objects. Empiri-cal observation and surveys on mobile phone use from a “cultural tools” perspective tell a different story. Our Omani example lends insight into what exactly it means for mobile phones to be understood as cultural tools.

While we do not discount the limitations and poten-tial downsides of mobile phones, a “cultural tools” ap-proach suggests that when intercultural problems arise around phones, it is not especially useful to discuss the phone as mere technology. Instead, managers, trainers, and others who work in intercultural settings must fa-cilitate dialogues that elucidate how individuals actually use their mobile phones, and how such uses are situated in, and shaped by, culture. Only through such conversa-tions can we achieve shared understanding. i

Notes

1. Mohammad Ibahrine, “Mobile Communication and So-ciopolitical Change in the Arab World,” in Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies, edited by James E. Katz (Cambridge: MIt Press, 2008), 257–272.

2. Najma Al Zidjaly, “Omanis and GSMs,” Muscat Daily, Feb-ruary 18, 2012.

3. Amanda Lenhart, “Cell Phones and American Adults,” Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2010 http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Cell-Phones-and-Ameri-can-Adults/Overview/Findings.aspx

4. Yasser Hareb, Picasso and Starbucks (Beirut: Madarek Pub-lishing House, 2011).


For many business leaders, cultural awareness and understanding is considered a soft skill that can be taken lightly compared to hard skills like mar-

ket research, negotiation strategies, and business devel-opment acumen. But a leader’s ability to do any of these tasks successfully in a multicultural context quickly be-comes a bottom-line issue when dealing with real people in real situations. Thankfully, there’s an emerging body of research1 that provides tangible ways to assess and develop cultural intelligence, or CQ—the capability to function effectively across various cultural contexts.

Cultural intelligence is rooted in more than a decade of rigorous academic research2 across dozens of different cultures. It has led to a whole new way of approaching cross-border management, diversity training, and vir-tual team development. Previously, the predominant ap-proach to cultural competence was to teach people about specific cultures and assume that knowledge would translate into sensitivity and effectiveness in intercul-tural contexts. In contrast, our findings indicate that a leader’s cultural intelligence is largely a personal capability rooted in the individual’s internal motivation, thinking, consciousness, and adaptability. Research demonstrates that CQ is a capability that can be assessed and devel-oped with promising results for those who manage with cultural intelligence. We begin by reviewing the four ca-pabilities of cultural intelligence and then we describe ways leaders can assess and develop this CQ capability in themselves and others.

The Four Capabilities of Culturally Intel-ligent Leaders

Leaders with high CQ can effectively adapt their leadership style to fit multicultural situations involving customers, suppliers, and associates from diverse back-grounds. They demonstrate strength in four distinct CQ capabilities (Drive, Knowledge, Strategy, and Action). Leaders need all four capabilities, because focusing on one without the others can actually result in increased cultural ignorance rather than enhanced cultural intel-ligence. This is because CQ requires an overall repertoire of adaptive capabilities. The four CQ capabilities are:

1. Drive: Showing interest, confidence, and drive to adapt cross-culturally. CQ Drive is the leader’s level of interest, motivation, and confidence to adapt cross-culturally. This refers to whether or not you have the confidence and drive to work through the challenges and conflict that often accompany intercultural work. The ability to be personally engaged and to persevere through intercultural challenges is one of the most novel aspects of cultural intelligence. Many intercultural train-ing approaches simply assume that people are motivated to gain cross-cultural capabilities. Yet employees often approach diversity training apathetically, and employees headed out on international assignments are often more concerned about moving their families overseas and get-ting settled than they are about developing cultural un-derstanding. Without ample motivation, there is little point in spending time and money on training.

Cultural Intelligence: Why Every Leader Needs It

by David Livermore, Linn Van Dyne,and Soon Ang

Dr. David Livermore has written several books on global leadership and cultural intelligence including Leading with Cultural Intelligence and his newest release, The Cultural Intelligence Difference. He is president of the Cultural Intelligence Center in East Lansing, Mich., and has worked with leaders in more than 100 countries. Dr. Linn Van Dyne is a professor of management at Michigan State University, where she conducts research on discretionary behavior and cultural intelligence, serves on five editorial boards, and is Associate Editor of Organi-zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. She co-edited the Handbook of Cultural Intelligence. Prior to her academic career, she held management positions in worldwide for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. Dr. Soon Ang is the Goh Tjoei Kok Distinguished Chair and Professor in Management at the Nanyang Techno-logical University in Singapore. She co-authored two foundational books on CQ and co-edited the Handbook of Cultural Intelligence.

19Summer 2012

Doug, an American with a multinational firm who was sent to manage a team in Bangkok, describes how little he paid attention to the cultural training he received before moving to Thailand. It wasn’t that he didn’t care. It’s just that he was overwhelmed getting ready for the move and he found the training overly theoretical and too focused upon cultural stereotypes. But he definitely wanted to succeed.

CQ Drive includes intrinsic motivation (the degree to which you derive enjoyment from culturally diverse situ-ations), extrinsic motivation (the more tangible benefits you gain from culturally diverse experiences), and self-efficacy (your confidence that you will be effective in an intercultural encounter). All three of these motivational dynamics play a role in how leaders approach multicul-tural situations. Stop and examine your motivation for doing cross-cultural work. Your CQ Drive is strongly re-lated to your effectiveness in new cultural contexts.

2. Knowledge: Understanding intercultural issues and differences. CQ Knowledge is the cognitive di-mension of cultural intelligence. It refers to the leader’s level of understanding about culture and culture’s role in shaping the way to do business when different cultures are involved. Your CQ Knowledge is based upon the degree to which you understand the idea of culture and how it influences the way you think and behave. It also includes your overall understanding of the ways cultures vary from one context to the next.

When Doug got to Bangkok, he quickly discovered that leading and motivating his mostly Asian team wasn’t com-ing easily. And he had a reputation for being a phenomenal negotiator. But his negotiations kept getting stalled. Even though he had extensive management experience, he was losing confidence in his ability to be a good leader there.

One of the most important parts of CQ Knowledge is a macro-level understanding of cultural systems and the cultural norms and values associated with different soci-eties. In order to lead effectively you need to understand ways that communication styles, predominant religious

beliefs, gender role expectations, etc. can differ across cultures. In addition, general knowledge about different types of economic, business, legal, and political systems that exist throughout the world is important. And you need a core understanding of culture, language patterns and non-verbal behaviors. This kind of knowledge helps build your confidence when working in a new cultural environment.

The other important part of CQ Knowledge is know-ing how culture influences your effectiveness in specific domains. For example, being an effective global leader in business looks different from being an effective leader of a multicultural university. And working across bor-ders for an information technology company requires a different application of cultural understanding than

working across borders for a charitable organization or on a military initiative. This kind of specialized, domain-specific cultural knowledge combined with a macro un-derstanding of cultural issues is a crucial part of leading with cultural intelligence.

CQ Knowledge is the area that is most often empha-sized in typical approaches to intercultural competency. A large and growing training and consulting industry fo-cuses on teaching leaders about general cultural values. While valuable on its own, the information that stems from CQ Knowledge has to be combined with the other three capabilities of CQ or its relevance to the real de-mands of leadership is questionable and potentially det-rimental.

3. Strategy: Making sense of culturally diverse expe-riences and planning accordingly. CQ Strategy refers to the leader’s level of awareness and ability to strategize when crossing cultures. This capability involves slowing the pace long enough to carefully observe what is going on inside our own and other people’s heads. It is the abil-ity to think about our own thought processes and draw

Developing cultural intelligence takes more than just the gut-level sixth sense promoted in leadership circles.


upon our cultural knowledge to understand a different cultural context and solve problems in that situation. It includes whether we can use our cultural knowledge to plan an appropriate strategy, accurately interpret what is going on in an intercultural situation, and check to see if our expectations are accurate or need to be adjusted.

Doug has always used a leadership style focused upon de-veloping individuals to pursue their personal goals and to “lead themselves”. He was aware that this was a countercul-tural approach in Asia. But he had no interest in becoming a highly directive leader. So he had to develop a strategy for how to be true to himself while effectively leading a team with values different from his.

Seasoned leaders often jump into meetings and new situations with little planning. This works fine when meeting with colleagues or clients from a similar cultural background. By drawing upon emotional intelligence and leadership experience, we can get away with “wing-ing it” because we know how to respond to cues and how to talk about various projects. When meetings in-volve individuals from different cultural contexts, how-ever, many of the rules change. Relying upon our ability to intuitively respond to cues in these more novel situa-tions is dangerous. That is where CQ Strategy comes in.

CQ Strategy includes planning, awareness, and check-ing. Planning is taking the time to prepare for an inter-cultural encounter—anticipating how to approach the people, topic, and situation. Awareness means being in tune with what is going on in one’s self and others. Checking is the monitoring we do as we engage in inter-actions to see if the plans and expectations we had were appropriate. It is comparing what we expected with our actual experience. CQ Strategy emphasizes implemen-tation, and it is the lynchpin between understanding cultural issues and actually being able to use that under-standing to manage effectively.

4. Action: Changing verbal and nonverbal actions appropriately when interacting cross-culturally. Fi-nally, CQ Action is the leader’s ability to act appropri-ately in a wide range of cultural situations. It influences

whether we can actually accomplish our performance goals effectively in light of different cultural situations. One of the most important aspects of CQ Action is knowing when to adapt to another culture and when not to do so. A leader with high CQ learns which actions will and won’t enhance effectiveness and acts upon that understanding. Thus, CQ Action involves flexible be-haviors tailored to the specific cultural context.

Doug is grateful for a team of staff who are fluent in English. He’s learning some basic Thai to get along. But at times, he feels like he has to relearn English too. His assis-tant needs very explicit, step-by-step directions. And on the rare occasion when she makes a request, he has the hardest time figuring out exactly what she’s asking for.

CQ Action includes the capability to be flexible in ver-bal and nonverbal actions. It also includes appropriate flexibility in speech acts—the exact words and phrases we use when we communicate specific types of messages (e.g., offering negative feedback directly or indirectly or knowing how to appropriately make a request). While the demands of today’s intercultural settings make it im-possible to master all the dos and don’ts of various cul-tures, there are certain behaviors that should be modified when we interact with different cultures. For example, Westerners need to learn the importance of carefully studying business cards presented by those from most Asian contexts. Also, some basic verbal and nonverbal behaviors enhance the extent to which others see us as effective. As an example, the verbal tone (e.g., loud vs. soft) in which words are spoken can convey different meanings across cultures. And although it is not neces-sary for an outsider to master the intricacies of bowing in Japan, appropriate use of touch is something to bear in mind. In sum, almost every approach to intercultural work has insisted on the importance of flexibility. With CQ Action, we now have a way to enhance flexibility.

Leading with Cultural Intelligence

In order for cultural intelligence to impact the bottom line, leaders need to think strategically about a long-term approach for developing this capability. A few of the key

Cultural intelligence...

21Summer 2012

strategies for leading with cultural intelligence include the following:

1. Reflect on your own CQ capabilities. Begin with a commitment to consider your own capabilities for leading across cultures. By thinking through the four capabilities of CQ, consider which area is strongest and weakest for you:

• Drive: What is my level of interest in cross-cultural issues?

• Knowledge: to what degree do I understand how cultures are similar and different?

• Strategy: Am I aware of what is occurring in a cross-cultural situation and am I able to plan ac-cordingly?

• Action: Do I know when I should adapt and when I should not adapt my behavior cross-culturally?

Each of us is stronger in some of these areas than oth-ers. Zero in on one specific CQ capability to begin in-creasing your overall CQ.

2. Assess and develop the cultural intelligence of others. Next, utilize the above ideas with your colleagues and with those you manage. Begin by assessing the CQ of strategic leaders and associates who have the most in-teraction with culturally diverse contexts. Next, add CQ assessment and feedback to ongoing human resources programs for large numbers of employees.

Don’t put everyone through the same one-size fits all intercultural training plan. Some have plenty of knowl-edge but not a lot of motivation. Others are very mo-tivated but aren’t quite sure how to translate that into effective behavior. Empower your team and your col-leagues to develop personalized CQ development plans based upon their CQ strengths and weaknesses.

Bringing in speakers, offering workshops, and distrib-uting books to offer a common language and vision can be very helpful within this context. Just be sure the edu-cation and training fits within a larger plan. And when-ever possible, provide personnel with individualized feedback and coaching to help them in this process.

3. Assess the cross-border effectiveness of the or-ganization as a whole. Cultural intelligence begins at the personal level. But leading with cultural intelligence must also include an analysis of the organization’s prac-tices. Some questions to begin with are: What is our level of success working internationally or across different ethnic cultures domestically? What is the level of satisfaction from personnel and clients or constituents who come from differ-ent cultural backgrounds? To what degree do cultural dif-ferences inform our strategic decisions? What is our plan for retaining our core identity or brand while also adapting to various cultures?

4. Integrate global effectiveness into your strategic plan. Rather than simply relegating cross-border effec-tiveness to the “international sales” division or to the “di-versity and inclusion officer”, make it part of the overall strategic plan for the organization: How does culture need to inform the way R&D do their work? How does a globally dispersed workforce or clientele need to shape the way I.S. develops their processes? How will the targets identified at the C-suite level be informed by cross-border issues?

The demands of leading in an era of escalating global-ization are fast and furious. Companies need leaders who have the know-how to quickly adjust to dozens of dif-ferent cultures on a daily basis. This is a capability that can be developed by any manager, but it takes more than just the gut-level sixth sense that is often promoted in leadership circles. It requires discipline and hard work as well as adaptability for leaders to inspire, innovate, and negotiate effectively in today’s increasingly diverse world. And with that hard work, slowly but surely, managers and companies can expect to see the bottom line impli-cations of leading with cultural intelligence. i

Notes

1. Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne, Handbook of Cultural Intel-ligence (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2008).

2. A sampling of articles from more than 70 peer-reviewed journals that have included research on cultural intel-ligence can be found at http://culturalq.com/researchar-ticles.html.


the unsuspecting American stepping into the seating area of a multi-story McDonald’s in to-kyo is met with rows upon rows of counter seats

for solo burger seekers. In a sight bizarrely reminiscent of a college library, some Japanese McDonald’s even have dividers between seats to ensure cozy, carefree munch-ing. A lot goes on in the privacy of these burger cells, from sleeping it out until the first morning train to en-joying a post-McNugget smoke over a raunchy manga book.

For many around the world, the omnipresent golden arches of McDonald’s have become the most visible symbol of globalization. The famous Thomas Friedman saying goes: “No two countries that both have a Mc-Donald’s ever fought a war against each other.” From the proliferation of multinational companies to increasingly interconnected trade relations, it’s old news that grow-ing globalization is changing the face of the world as we know it. Social media allow for regular communication with friends around the world, and cultural products are finding national boundaries to be largely porous. With this ever-heightening focus on the growing interconnect-edness of the world, emphasis has largely shifted from IQ to “EQ” (emotional intelligence), from ability to ability to work well with others. Books like How to Talk to Anyone are steady bestsellers, and constant text mes-sages, tweets, and status updates make true “me-time” a rarity. Without a doubt, recognizing the importance of networking, teamwork, and discussion is critical to the success of individuals, corporations, governments and societies at large. However, in highlighting the impor-tance of connecting and collaborating with others, we may be neglecting just how much a healthy dose of me-time affects creativity and productivity.

In fact, things may have taken a negative turn for the introspective among us who thrive on me-time. Bom-barded with endless team brainstorming sessions, shared Google documents, and networking receptions, the pres-ent century allows very little opportunity for true me-time in the professional context. TIME magazine’s tokyo bureau chief recalls catching up on some much-needed me-time in the bathroom of the American embassy in tokyo, feeling the pressures of a job that prods him to be “trolling” or “mining” for gossip at gigs like the ambas-sador’s annual holiday party. A February 6, 2012 TIME article he authored, “The Upside of Being An Introvert (And Why Extroverts Are Overrated),” tackles the issue of under-appreciating the potential of introverts.

It has been known that many of the world’s most no-table, creative figures in the past and present highly value time spent alone. Introspective philosophers and science nerds from history aside, from Jessica Alba to Steve Jobs to Joel Osteen, countless famous and influential figures today claim to be “nerds” or “introverts” who most enjoy spending time alone or in the company of the very few individuals with whom they feel most comfortable. Suf-ficient me-time not only ensures the adequate tapping of the creative potential of introspection, but also prevents burnout from the constant badgering that accompanies an increasingly interconnected world. Both introverts and extroverts can benefit from a healthy dose of isola-tion. Encouraging employees to take a few minutes to sufficiently think things through or to catch a break from the tsunami of on- and off-line interactions that characterize life in 2012 may be just the nudge needed to complete America’s next top management model.

The twenty-first century is often characterized as a cold, gadget-filled, inhuman age where interpersonal communication is sacrificed for personal convenience and privacy. Needless to say, some of this looks to be true. But, in developing an effective management mod-el for the age of heightened globalization, it may be worthwhile to consider the unprecedented level of in-terconnectedness that characterizes today’s workplace. E-mails, instant messages, video conferencing—the list goes on. This is perhaps true for most busy work settings

It’s Not Us, It’s Me:Why We Need More Me-Time

by Grace Yoo

Grace (Haenim) Yoo is an M.A. candidate in the School of International Service at American Uni-versity. As a Thomas R. Pickering Fellow, she will join the U.S. Foreign Service upon receiving her degree in International Communication next year.

23Summer 2012

throughout history, but the twenty-first century work-place provides a particularly unfavorable environment for introspection. A focus on collaboration and staying “in the loop”—both digitally and personally—may have given rise to a more high-context workplace that mimics Ferdinand tönnies’ Gemeinschaft model in character.

Clues on how best to implement me-time may best be found through the example of Japan, the land of semi-private McDonald’s seating. Japan is among those societ-ies that are traditionally considered high-context, where the focus is generally on functioning as a community rather than on ensuring individualism. Offices in Japan are marked by open rows of desks rather than cozy cu-bicle walls, and there is generally very little time or space devoted to the individual. It has been said that Japanese live amidst seken, a concept considered to be native to Japan. Seken combines the two Chinese characters that mean “world” and “space between,” and refers to “the total network of social relations that surround an indi-vidual.” The term also conveys the corresponding norms and values that function to regulate social behavior and maintain such relations. In other words, an individual’s behaviors and actions are constantly measured against and adjusted to the surrounding context that is created by others who are also inhabiting the space, be it at the office, the grocery store, or a rock concert. This can get tiresome—more so for some than others. Hikikomori are Japanese who have grown so tired of interacting with the world in this way that they have chosen to become re-cluses, never leaving their homes and surviving for years by receiving deliveries of essentials. Many hikikomori are former hardworking employees who were known at the workplace for their polite smiles and considerate e-mails.

But in this country where collectivism and conformity have long been the name of the game (and even the in-gredient to success), quiet recognition of the importance of me-time has steadily emerged. to counter the burdens of constantly shaping one’s actions based on the context of the surrounding environment, mini-opportunities for escape are sprouting all over Japan—with divider-clad, semi-private McDonald’s branches leading the way. Bar-becue bars, where the exhausted can enjoy grilled meat

in peace and solitude after a hard day’s work, are taking this idea to the next level. Comfortably settled in sin-gle-occupancy counter seats, customers can satisfy meat cravings without feeling the embarrassing gaze of whis-pering onlookers who click their tongues at the lonely, desperate solo barbecue-griller. In Asia, as in many other parts of the world, barbecues are usually a communal af-fair, and it is almost taboo to enter a barbecue restaurant without at least one other companion. tired of having to enjoy barbecued meat only when accompanied by soon-to-be drunk coworkers, Japan’s after-work crowds have driven the rising popularity of these bars.

Ramen restaurants have also long been known for their counter seats and have been a longtime friend of those who seek me-time; coffee chains around Japan are also increasing their counter seating to accommodate those seeking a solitary midday break from the office. Japan has long been known as a crowded island where a keen awareness of other’s perceptions has dominated customs, practices and behaviors. However, precisely this bur-den—a lifelong awareness of seken—has given rise to an understanding of the importance and power of me-time. Contemporary Japanese society is increasingly creating spaces for individuals to be alone, away from the shared space of the office or the crowds of the subway trains. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that one of the world’s most collectivist, conformist societies is also the mecca of futuristic robots, innovative breakthroughs and imagi-native animated worlds. Japan has learned to preserve a highly interconnected societal structure without com-promising creativity, and perhaps the country’s respect for me-time is at the core of this success.

In the twenty-first century workplace, an environment that runs the risk of overemphasizing “we-time,” suffi-cient incorporation of me-time can foster creative think-ing through a healthy dose of introspection and increase productivity by preventing burnout. Dividers and coun-ter seating just may be the next big thing. i

Name:

Title: organization:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Country: E-mail:

Phone: Fax:

Check Enclosed Credit Card (circle one) MasterCard ViSA AmEx Cash Enclosed

Signature: Date:

Subscription form for the intercultural Management institute Associates Program

Card #:

Mail to: intercultural Management institute, American University4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20016-8177

The Intercultural Management Institute Associates Program

You are invited to join us formally in the education and discovery of intercultural management and training at American University. become an iMi Associate and receive the benefits of being more closely involved with the institute by receiving:

* 20% off all iMi workshops and conferences (this does not include Skills institutes, which are considered academic courses through the School of international Service; also, 20% discount is in addition to any other discounted rates);

* The iMi Update, which contains information about current trends and events in the field of intercultural communication, as well as announcements from fellow Associates and links to related intercultural web resources;

* A one year subscription to iMQ and free digital copies of iMQ upon request;

* iMi Associate Spotlight!, a networking resource that highlights Associate Members from around the world;

* invitations to Associates-only events.

Annual Association fees: Regular fee: $50 Student fee: $20

(Made payable to American University)

Name on card:

Regular Member ($50) Student Member ($20)

Exp. date:

Questions?e-mail: [email protected]

or call 202.885.6436Fax to: 202.885.1331

Documents

SUMMER 2012 IMQ