Can tragedy lead to greater partnership and increased understanding? Consider the following:
We were working with several partners to help an indigenous organization in South Asia establish a leadership training program. A non-profit in the U.S. was a member of that partnership and was providing a monthly salary for the program Director. To save transmission costs the money was sent in big chunks, several months’ salary at a time. A short time after the Director received one of these disbursements, a family member was killed in a horrible accident.
Several weeks later, he contacted us with the news that he was completely broke, and his immediate family was struggling and desperate. It turns out that he had spent all the money just sent on the funeral and the various gatherings that surrounded it. The board members of the non-profit that provided the funds were quite upset. They said “That money was meant for his personal salary, it was supposed to last for months! How could he be so reckless?!” Words like “misappropriation” and “loss of trust” started to come up in our conversations about this partnership.
What was going on? Was the Director indeed being careless? How could both sides understand the actions and attitudes of the other? To find the answer we need to consult with someone besides the partners in South Asia and the U.S. We need to ask the third person in the room, one who is always silent and invisible, yet very influential.
What do I mean? I am referring to the dynamic that occurs when we interact cross-culturally. Each one involved is constantly evaluating and filtering and interpreting. The baseline for that interpretation is what I am calling the “the third person in the room”. The name of this third person is Cultural Values.
Deeply ingrained in each of us is an invisible thing called culture… it’s a way of seeing and understanding the world that helps us make sense of all the information flowing toward us. Along with those around us we develop a model that holds certain things to be more valuable than others. The challenge is that these cultural values vary widely from one region or nation to another, so that what I am intending to communicate by my words and actions, according to my values, can be interpreted quite differently, according to yours.
As my story illustrates these conflicting interpretations can lead to misunderstanding, distrust, and frustration. How do we avoid this negative outcome? How can we successfully consult with that third person in the room?
Thankfully there are tools that can help us do just that. In the past 10 - 15 years a field of study has developed known as Cultural Intelligence, or “CQ”. We are all familiar with IQ, and CQ is similar… our CQ is a measurement of our ability to interact and communicate across cultures. David Livermore has been a pioneer in this area and has authored several books on the subject, and he breaks down CQ into 4 key areas. You can get all the details from his website but I want to show you how it can be applied practically to whet your appetite for the topic.
We are going to assume that the first key area, CQ Drive, the proper level of motivation, is already in place in the work of Community Development. So let’s look at the remaining three: Knowledge, Strategy, and Action.
First, in their research Livermore and others have worked to group cultural values into broad categories, with names like Power Distance and Time Orientation. Understanding these values is called CQ Knowledge, and it is key in helping us communicate and partner more effectively with those from other cultures, especially when their values contrast with ours.
In the scenario I described, the confusion and misunderstanding between partners resulted from several opposing cultural values common to their geographic region. In general, people from South Asia value collectivism, cooperation, and social commitments, while North Americans value the opposing traits of individualism, competition, and task completion.
From our partner’s perspective, he had no choice but to spend all that he had in response to this tragedy. The third person in the room was chastising him: “You have the resources! To not share would be inexcusable and would bring great shame on your extended family.” The North American perspective was quite different! The third person in the room was whispering in their ear: “He has broken your trust! He has used business funds for a personal need! He has put you in an embarrassing situation with your funders.”
Both held positions that were consistent with deeply held values, and both had to work hard to understand the position of the other. But simply understanding isn’t enough; we then have to apply that knowledge to the next key area, Strategy, and let it guide us to the last: appropriate Action.
After much discussion, and with an acknowledgement of the conflicting cultural values, we arrived at a solution: Money for the family’s personal support would be sent more frequently and in much smaller amounts, so he wouldn’t have so much available if social demands came about. The board in their turn would be open to special requests in time of crisis, recognizing the pressure that was on the Director from the community.
In this way the third person in the room was satisfied. The cultural values of the individual parties were upheld, and the needs of all were respected.
You may not be involved in international partnerships, but in our increasingly diverse world you cannot avoid cross-cultural interaction. It might be business, education, travel, or just the other parents on the soccer field, improving your CQ can dramatically affect your success in those encounters.
In order to be effective as a citizen of our Global society we must be willing to listen, understand, and act on the advice of that third person in the room.