spring 2012 imq

Spring 2012Vol. 13, No. 1

Integrating Culture and Management in Global Organizations

Cultural Differences in Crisis Communication:One Year After Fukushima .....................................................3by Motoo Unno

Crossing Barriers of Communication andCulture in Traumatized Societies ........................................6 by Patrick Christian and Aleksandra Nesic

Who Am I, Really? Redefining Identity in aCulturally Complex World .......................................................9by Ruth Van Reken

The Au Pair Program:Cultural Exchange or Consumer Industry? ...................12by Valli Murphy

The Right Tool for the Job ....................................................17by Martin Tillman

Style Switching for Success inMulticultural Groups ...............................................................21by Julia Gaspar-Bates

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, and welcome to the Spring 2012 Confer-ence edition of Intercultural Management Quarterly! To commemorate the Intercultural Management In-stitute’s 13th Annual Conference on Intercultural Re-lations, we have invited some of our expert presenters to share their unique perspectives.

First, we hear from one of this year’s keynote speak-ers and a regular IMQ contributor, Motoo Unno. In his article, Unno assesses the influence of culture on crisis communication in Japan after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

Next, Patrick Christian and Aleksandra Nesic out-line some principles, strategies and tactics for inter-ventionists working with traumatized communities in conflict zones. Ruth Van Reken, another veteran IMQ contributor, discusses the challenges “Third Culture Kids” (TCKs) face in a world of strict iden-tity categories, and Valli Murphy follows up with a critical analysis of the au pair program in the United States.

To round out this issue, Martin Tillman advises students and counselors on the value of study abroad experience for career development in “The Right Tool for the Job,” and Julia Gaspar-Bates shares her approach to working with multicultural groups.

Finally, I have two exciting announcements. First, IMQ is getting a new look—watch out for a long-overdue facelift in the coming months. Second, we are hard at work to finally make the IMQ archives easily accessible and searchable online!

Please enjoy. As always, I welcome your feedback!

Marc RambeauManaging Editor

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

3Spring 2012 3

Cultural Differences in Crisis Communication:one Year After Fukushima

by Motoo Unno

Dr. Motoo Unno is a professor at Meiji University in Tokyo, Japan and a keynote speaker at this year’s Annual Conference on Intercultural Relations. His research focuses on cross-cultural communication and leadership styles. He has recently begun a tour as visiting scholar at the Intercultural Management Institute, where he will research the American presidential election; he also served as a visiting scholar from 2008–2010. He is the author of 13 books, including The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster and The Toyota Congressional Hearings (2011).

The year 2011 was supposed to be a special one for the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEP-CO). It was the sixtieth anniversary of the

company’s founding and the fortieth of the construc-tion of its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant by a joint venture with General Electric. yet on March 11, 2011, triple tragedies struck Northern Japan: a magni-tude 9.0 earthquake, a huge tsunami, and a meltdown at the Fukushima plant. This article will analyze how cultural values influence crisis communication by ex-amining U.S. and Japanese officials’ communication during and after the accident. It will also assess how cross-cultural elements play a role in crisis leadership. Finally, it will invite discussion on a new issue that has emerged since the accident.

Politeness, Modesty, Harmoniousness

Japanese schools are highly concerned with their stu-dents’ morality, stressing the principles of right and wrong behavior. In general, Japanese society tends to evaluate a person based on his or her politeness, modesty, and harmoniousness. These national values serve as guid-ing principles in the typical Japanese person’s life and are highly appreciated by Japanese society. Following last year’s triple crisis, the Japanese people amply dem-onstrated these core values. For example, people who went to grocery stores after the earthquake picked up goods from the floors, formed a line, and waited po-litely and patiently to pay for their food.

Later that summer, the Japanese people also showed their modesty. TEPCO and other electric companies

asked their customers to conserve electricity as much as possible. Some people, particularly elders who had lived through World War II, were very worried about power shortages; their generation was taught to save everything to win the war. Even though the temperature outside was very high, many felt guilty about using air condi-tioners and suffered from heatstroke.

The value placed on harmoniousness also influenced the nation’s handling of the nuclear crisis. Shortly after it began, a former U.S. task force member in Washington, D.C., who monitored the Fukushima plant for 24 hours, asked an officer at the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency whether or not Japan needed unmanned helicopters. Because of the urgency of the situation, the U.S. official just wanted a “yes or no” answer. Instead, his Japanese counterpart expressed the need to first cre-ate a committee to discuss the issue, which would then come to a decision. He pointed out the importance of building consensus to maintain harmony in the Agency. This story suggests that national values became more pronounced in crisis situations.

Shaky Amae

The Japanese psychiatrist Takeo Doi first published his book, Amae no Kozo, “The Structure of Amae,” more than 40 years ago. In it, Doi introduced the concept of amae—which can be translated roughly as “sweet depen-dency”—to describe the relationship between parents and their infants. Parents take care of and protect their infants, and infants depend on their parents; trust is at the core of the amae relationship. As between parents and their babies, amae exists in the relationship between the Japanese people and its government. Traditionally,

Spring 2012


Cultural Differences...

this means the Japanese people are more likely to depend on and believe a big government than are Americans. It is interesting, for example, to compare Japanese people and Tea Party activists. Unlike the Japanese, Tea Partiers are extremely individualistic, distrust their government, and would prefer a smaller one. yet after the Fukushi-ma disaster occurred, the amae relationship between the Japanese people and their government was severely com-promised, and people began to doubt the government’s decisions.

First, the Japanese government’s official evacuation zone only covered a 12-mile radius around the Fuku-shima plant. On the other hand, the U.S. government’s extended 50 miles. The difference confused people and made many question whether 12 miles was enough.

Second, the Japanese people began to suspect their government’s assessment of the accident at the plant. Despite the explosions at reactors 1 and 3 in March, the government’s assessment rated the Fukushima disaster a level 5 out of 7 on the International Nuclear and Ra-diological Event Scale. This placed it at the same level as the incident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylva-nia in 1979, which did not cause a hydrogen explosion. In April, however, the government raised its assessment from 5 to 7, the worst rating on the scale, putting the disaster on par with the 1986 Chernobyl explosion. yet the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry claimed that releases of radioactive material from the Fukushima plant were only about 10 percent of those at Chernobyl. The Japanese rightly questioned why their government would raise its rating if that were the case.

Third, the government set the allowable radiation ex-posure level for children in Fukushima prefecture at 20 millisieverts per year. This number is 20 times the stan-dard for the rest of Japan. After the decision, one of

then-Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s advisors suddenly re-signed, explaining in tears that he could not accept the government’s decision from a humanistic and moral per-spective. Many Japanese watched his press conference in shock, feeling they could no longer rely on their govern-ment.

Finally, in May, two months after the disaster, TEPCO admitted to multiple meltdowns at reactors 1, 2 and 3. In June, the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency announced that meltdown occurred only five hours after the accident at the Fukushima plant. Many Japanese people accused both the government and TEP-CO of having withheld information about meltdown. In fact, most Japanese people never even saw the actual hydrogen explosions in reactors 1 and 3 on TV, while

international channels includ-ing CNN, Australia ABC, ZDF and F2 provided continuous coverage of the explosions.

Japanese community mem-bers in the Fukushima prefec-

ture were not convinced by their government’s decisions and became frustrated at its slow responses. Some even decided to take action themselves, getting rid of radioac-tive material in schools, parks and roads by monitoring and disposing of soil to protect their children.

Global Leadership and Openness

How should a global leader behave in a crisis? Initially, Prime Minister Kan tried to deal with the disaster by in-volving only the Japanese. After his resignation, he gave an interview to the newspaper Mainichi in which he said he had thought that if Japan did not solve the Fu-kushima problem by itself, other countries would come to fix it. Kan finally recognized that Japan itself could not find the solution to the disaster and should collab-orate with the international community. After all, the nuclear disaster was not only a domestic problem, but also an international one—massive amounts of radioac-tive material were released into the sea and air. A leader should accept the best people, ideas, technology, wisdom

The Japanese government’s official evacuation zone only covered a 12-mile radius around the Fukushima plant... the U.S. government’s extended 50 miles.

5Spring 2012

and opinions regardless of race or nationality. That is a global leader. The Fukushima disaster revealed the lack of a global mindset among Japan’s political leaders, and showed their weak leadership under crisis.

Furthermore, the Fukushima disaster revealed one Japanese business leader’s inability to properly handle a crisis situation. Then-CEO of TEPCO, Masataka Shi-mizu, was hospitalized because of his frustration after the nuclear accident. Shimizu returned at the beginning of April and repeatedly told the Japanese people that there were no immediate health effects from the radia-tion leaks. He avoided taking responsibility for the han-dling of the nuclear disaster, blaming it solely on the tsunami and calling it totally unprecedented. Instead, Shimizu should have been more aggressive in navigating the crisis, and should have shown leadership to the inter-national community.

In addition to a lack of global leadership, a culture of collusion between the bureaucracy and industry in Japan made the government ineffective and dysfunctional. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which sup-ports and promotes nuclear plants, has worked closely with both the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and TEPCO for a long time. The Agency should be a watch-dog, but its officers usually come from the Ministry. Thus, the Agency is not a truly independent regulator. To make matters worse, TEPCO also hired many ex-of-ficers from the ministry.

This constitutes a Japanese version of the “revolving door.” The culture of collusion among these three is tight; an “iron triangle” has resulted, with a high sense of cohesiveness, an “in-group” mentality, closed-mind-edness and overconfidence about the safety of Japan’s nuclear power plants. They have ignored and excluded scholars who have different viewpoints about nuclear safety. Their organizations lack diverse opinions and ideas and are susceptible to groupthink. This issue must be examined, and cozy ties among the three should be reassessed before another major nuclear disaster hits Ja-pan.

Discrimination and Stereotypes

The nuclear accident exposed one final issue that must not be overlooked—discrimination. In Iwate Prefecture, a distinct “in-group vs. out-group” mentality, complete with stereotypes and prejudices, has arisen among tsuna-mi victims. Victims who lost their houses take pains to differentiate themselves from those who did not, point-ing out that they cannot possibly share the same feelings. They tend to overemphasize their differences, behaving negatively and even displaying open hostility toward those whose houses were saved. A similar mentality has taken hold among the people surrounding Fukushima. Approximately 17,000 children left the prefecture due to a high risk of radioactive contamination; residents of their new home prefectures, who mistakenly believe that radioactive material is transmitted between people, often perceive these children as threats. The children suffer the disrespect that often follows such negative stereotypes.

Additionally, victims of the Fukushima disaster face discrimination in the job market. Some business own-ers argue that hiring them will raise costs, citing higher insurance fees and fears that money spent on training and education might never be paid back. It is the re-sponsibility of Japanese companies to explicitly discour-age discrimination against the victims; Japanese society must also openly discuss the discrimination against these people to reduce stereotypes and prejudices before they get even worse.

Conclusion

Crisis communication and cultural values are woven together inextricably. The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has opened people’s eyes to the dangers of the blind trust inherent in amae and cast a new light on the relationship between bureaucracy and industry. It has also laid bare the issue of discrimination in Japan. The country urgently needs strong leadership with a global and open mindset to prepare for future cri-ses. i


Crossing Barriers of Communication andCulture in Traumatized Societies

by Patrick Christianand Aleksandra Nesic

Every day, governmental, intergovernmental, and private organizations deploy thousands of men and women to conflict zones around the world.

This dedicated corps of interventionists faces seeming-ly intractable issues of violence and development that plague cultures struggling to adapt to a changing world. Often, though, interventionists are insufficiently trained in overcoming barriers of language, culture, time and psychology. Using under-trained personnel in conflict engagement risks not only public and private money but also the success of the mission and the lives of those who serve. In this article, we address some of the gaps in cross-cultural training for intervention in traumatized zones; we also suggest some principles, strategies and tactics that interventionists can employ to successfully cross boundaries of communication and culture.

Facing Rage in Tribal Engagement

The cycles of violence and rage that grip conflict zones can be overwhelming—even incommunicable. Feelings of loss, mourning and revenge touch every village and every home; they linger long after the physical violence has ended or moved on, sustained by the trauma of war. Violence wounds its victims, witnesses and perpetrators alike; the trauma cannot be ignored or overlooked. In order to effectively communicate with the traumatized, interventionist missions must strive to understand the emotional states of those they wish to help.

The phases of trauma have stable effects across cul-tures, and such emotions—and the responses they trig-ger in communities—can be understood and tracked. The onset of victimization produces specific psychologi-

cal effects, such as shame of rejection, displacement and loss. Shame and humiliation in turn ignite the rage and hatred that fuel the ongoing cycle of violence.

yet members of sociocentric, shame-based societies, whose individual identities are tightly interwoven with that of the group, react to victimization differently than do egocentric, individualistic societies. They live their lives in closer physical, emotional and psychological proximity to one another than that to which most West-ern interventionists are accustomed; this creates a dens-er, more sensitive sociological structure that exacerbates the effects of shame and rage.

Interventionists’ strategies for communicating across emotion-laden barriers should involve a deep listening approach that allows sociocentric individuals to vent these deep-seated feelings. During one investigation into tribal violence in Darfur, a mediation team I served on worked to understand events before, during and after an attack on Mooney Village in Jebel Marra. When we arrived to interview the survivors, we found the remain-ing matriarch of the village so overwhelmed by victim-hood that she was unable to speak for some time. Our team waited patiently in silence until the elderly woman was able to collect herself and begin to relate her story.

Not long into her narrative, though, rage took hold at the memory, recalled anew, of seeing her granddaugh-ters raped and killed. She began screaming at our team and at everyone nearby. A Ghanaian member of our team later explained that she was not yelling at us, but rather at God for breaking His promise of justice. Our team—used to such difficult communication—main-tained its sympathetic attitude, allowing the torrent of rage and grief to pass. Eventually the woman finished relating the events and walked away.

Patrick Christian is a policy advisor with the office of the Secretary of Defense, a doctoral student researching the psychological foundations of sociological structures in conflict and an adjunct faculty member at the National In-telligence University. He has led field teams conducting combat advisory missions, tribal engagement, and coun-terinsurgency operations in Colombia, Ecuador, Sudan, Ethiopia and Iraq. Aleksandra Nesic is an intercultural training specialist at Florida State University and a doctoral student in the Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at Nova Southeastern University.

7Spring 2012

Clearly grief, shame, rage and atrocities against human flesh and spirit are deeply embedded in the landscapes in which many interventionists are obliged to work. Communication can be complex and difficult. Below are several guiding principles that can help the interven-tionist remain psychologically and emotionally centered in the midst of traumatized communities:

• Grief and caring: you are not responsible for the condition of those you are engaging, but you can and should care about them. Interventionists and their interpreters must work to understand their hosts. This requires respecting their way of life, trusting in their ability to resolve problems, and believing in their ability to meet physical and un-derlying human needs.

• Meta-communication: All cultures communi-cate differently in verbal and non-verbal contexts. Learn how to meta-communicate—to “talk about talking” with your hosts. Exchange communi-cation context; ask them to help you overcome cultural communication barriers; seek their un-derstanding and forgiveness in advance for mis-takes of context or culture; make them partners in the communication process.

• Communicate feelings and emotions before content: There is a time and place for content, and it is not at the outset of communication. Initial in-teractions should be reserved for establishing con-text. Find out who the Westerners were who came before you and continue from that point. Doing so legitimizes your host’s past experience. If the past experience was good, seek to continue where that experience left off—with your host’s help. If the past experience was bad, apologize and seek to improve—with your host’s help. Remember, your host comes from a sociocentric society and likely doesn’t know anything about egocentric societies. Imagine trying to explain the desert to a jungle native—he or she has no frame of reference.

These principles are not intended to be authoritative. Every interventionist must develop a set of guiding prin-

ciples based on his or her mission and personal catalogue of abilities and liabilities. True relief for embattled soci-eties depends on difficult, long-term accomplishments such as the restoration of justice, identity management, and assessment and negotiation of relative and aspira-tional deprivation between the involved groups.

There are a number of strategies interventionists can use to improve communication between conflicting parties. For instance, an intervention team might in-vite tribal leaders and family heads to a mediation ses-sion where each tribe is offered the chance to read to the other a list of those killed in the conflict. What often begins as a perceived opportunity to humble the op-ponent by publicizing how many he has killed quickly turns into a sober realization of mutual loss, grief and suffering. Such small strategies can give combatants the psychological space necessary to begin dialogue on even more important issues, such as the possibility for surviv-al of the remaining members of each other’s family.

An intervention team might also focus on adapting its Western, egocentric communication styles to those of the sociocentric societies it engages. It must take pains to avoid transferring egocentric behavior onto tribal “early adopters” in defiance of tribal sociocentric mo-res. Interventionists should also consider careful use of the power that accompanies their status as potential re-source providers. The resources they deploy often over-whelm sociocentric societies; they must remember not to let the aura of resource power distort the traditional power structure that organizes and sustains the commu-nity.

For instance, a village leader or tribal chief who treats a junior member of an interventionist team humbly or hospitably has not necessarily invited that member to begin a public friendship. Behaving too familiarly with the patriarch might lessen his prestige in the eyes of his family or villagers. The interventionist must maintain appropriate public respect for the dignity of the family, village and tribal leaders; he or she must resist inappro-priate displays of solidarity with the power structure he or she is striving to support.


Crossing Barriers...

Three Tactics for the Interventionist

The strategies and principles we have outlined thus far provide an overview of the challenges the interven-tionist faces as well some guidelines for how to handle them. In 20 years of work with sociocentric societies in South America, Africa, and the Middle East, a number of particularly effective tactics to help break down com-munication barriers have arisen. The three most useful have been the use of meta-messages, the conscious re-placement of context with language, and the creation of a communication partnership among interventionist, in-terpreter and the community.

The first tactic—using meta-messages—is both ver-bal and non-verbal. Meta-messages are “messages about messages;” for the interventionist, these consist of verbal explanations of the intentions of the message as well as the non-verbal context in which it is delivered. An in-terventionist might provide his host audience a sort of preface, explaining what he plans to say before he says it. For example, if he intends to discuss building a school with the leader of his host village or tribe, he might start by discussing the state of education of the villagers and the cultural and sociological role that increased educa-tion among them would play. They might discuss how to deal with the “knowledge gap” between generations that establishing a formal school in the village children might create; the interventionist might suggest educat-ing select adults first, or including them in the educa-tion process to ensure the maintenance of generational memory and respect for the past.

The two might discuss the villagers’ fears of modernity and of the annihilation of their way of life that arose upon the interventionists’ arrival, with cars, radios, cameras, laptops and satellite phones in tow. Before even broaching the idea of building a school, they would ex-change meta-messages.

This approach requires careful planning. Long before a team arrives at a village, its non-verbal messages pre-cede it like bow waves ahead of a boat—always reaching shore before the craft or its passengers. As the team first enters the sovereign space of the tribe or village, youth-

ful eyes watch every move, taking stock of every piece of equipment and counting the number of males and females—even estimating intimate relationships within the team. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it is often a struggle to convince military personnel involved in key leader engagements to remove their helmets, body armor and weapons before entering the home of the village malik (“chief” or “mayor”). Imagine the contradictory messag-es—stated versus meta—an interventionist sends when he enters a home fully armed, clad in body armor, and announces that he is there to help. Try to imagine some-one shaking her head “no” even while she says “yes”—wouldn’t you be confused?

The second tactic is the verbal replacement of missing context. As previously noted, members of sociocentric societies rely heavily on context for communication. Words are laden with meaning from past intimate con-versations and interactions between family members or villagers. Where this context is lacking between in-terventionist and host, an honest appraisal of the dif-ficulties both face in communicating can serve as an invitation to extra-dialogical processes that can make up for the absent context.

For instance, an interventionist might explain that when she offers to share food with the villagers, her intent is not to imply that they are poor—even if it is true—but to use the shared meal to learn about her hosts and to show her appreciation. The addition of con-text to communication can, over time, spark a recipro-cal response in the villagers; they will not only speak or respond, but also clarify the intentions of their words. This extra-dialogical process is particularly essential if the interventionist team is trying to achieve a phenom-enological understanding of the structure and texture of its host society’s experiences of trauma, violence, loss, and privation.

Finally, the third tactic involves developing commu-nication partnerships among linguists, interventionists and the sociocentric communities they work with. The partnership the interventionist and his or her linguist create begins well in advance of any meetings with their hosts. Continued on page 16...

9Spring 2012

All over the world, I meet them—young people whose life stories defy categorization along tradi-tional lines of race, nationality, place, or culture.

Take Brice Royer, founder of My.Tckid.com. Born to a half-French, half-Vietnamese father and an Ethio-pian mother, Brice lived in ten countries before his 18th birthday; his father’s job as a UN peacekeeper kept the family on the move. Brice has now become a Canadi-an citizen. yes, he can check off several races on a col-lege application in the U.S. But where can Brice list the multiplicity of cultures that has shaped him from birth? When people ask him where he’s from, what can he say?

Lishawna’s mother is African American, her father from Barbados. She grew up in Brazil. If she were to fill out the latest Zogby survey, she’d face a similar check-list. How would she define herself? She isn’t mixed race, but there’s no place to check “mixed culture.” Should she check “African American” when her father is not? Her heart feels at home in Brazil, Barbados, and Evansville, Indiana. How can a simple checklist begin to describe Lishawna according to how she sees herself?

What about Beth? Her parents are white folks from the American Midwest, but she grew up in Turkey and that’s where her heart lies. When asked how she fills out forms that ask her racial and ethnic identity, she says she often checks “other”—because the mental picture that comes along with checking “white” or “Caucasian” doesn’t match who she sees herself to be.

What in the World Is Going On?

These young adults have grown up as what sociologist Ruth Hill Useem identified in the late 1950s as “third culture kids” (TCKs)—those who accompany their par-ents into another culture. All the TCKs she studied were overseas due to a parent’s career choice rather than as immigrants. Most, in those days, were like me—people who came from one passport culture (in my case, the U.S.) and lived primarily in one host culture (for me, Nigeria). Many TCKs today, however, are part of many cultural worlds.

And it is not only TCKs who experience firsthand the increasing cultural complexity of our day. Many other children are growing up as cross-cultural kids (CCKs), for a number of different reasons.

Elizabeth’s parents immigrated to the U.S. when she was nine years old. Her parents were of Jamaican descent but had grown up between Jamaica and Britain. When Elizabeth spoke on a panel to help educators understand some of the hidden diversity in their classrooms, she noted that people often mistake her as African Ameri-can, though she is not. One attendee took offense at this statement and asked Elizabeth why she didn’t want to be black. Elizabeth simply replied, “I’m glad to be black. But I am not African and I’m not American, so how can I be African American?” This begs the question: What does “African American” mean? Does it describe skin color? An ethnicity? A culture? A particular history? Something else?

International and interracial adoptions also present a growing shift in our cultural landscape. Jenna’s birth parents are Mexican, but she grew up in a white fam-ily in small-town Michigan. She speaks no Spanish and is married to a white U.S. citizen, but when they lived in Texas, most people addressed her first in Spanish and seemed resentful when she couldn’t reply. Jenna relates that when she asked her father how she was supposed to fill out the “identity” section of her college applications some years ago, he replied, “Just check whichever box will give you the most money!”

Who Am I, Really?Redefining identity in a Culturally Complex World

by Ruth Van Reken

Ruth Van Reken is an adult Third Culture Kid, co-founder of Families in Global Transition, author of Letters Never Sent and co-author of Third Culture Kids: The Experience of Grow-ing Up Among Worlds. Ruth has spent her ca-reer serving expatriate communities through trainings, on-site workshops, and writing.


The fact is, children all over the world raised in immi-grant, refugee, minority, internationally mobile, bicul-tural or mixed race families face a similar identity crisis: “Which of the many cultural worlds with which I have interacted ‘am’ I?” The same question faces the grow-ing number of children from local cultures who attend international schools, often to obtain an English-based education that will make them more competitive in the international job market. In a world that seems to de-mand they choose one “box” or another, the question “Who am I, really?” haunts some CCKs to the point that they don’t recognize the gifts this experience has also given them.

The stories go on and on. But what is the key takeaway for interculturalists?

Where Have We Been?

After World War II, businesses, governments, and other organizations began to interact with those of oth-er cultures. Unseen cultural collisions, predicted by Dr. Gary Weaver in his cultural iceberg model, were becom-ing a frustrating reality for many making their first for-ays onto the international (and cross-cultural) scene. It became critical for businesspeople and diplomats to un-derstand different value systems and worldviews, and an explosion of groundbreaking research followed.

At the same time, the civil rights movement and the other identity movements that followed brought the is-sue of diversity to the fore. However, diversity dealt al-most exclusively with easily distinguishable markers. Likewise, many of the models developed in the early days of cross-cultural training assumed distinct, clear-cut cultures that would meet and potentially collide.

How, then, do we handle the growing “cultural com-plexity” or “hidden diversity” of today’s younger genera-tions? Which culture shall we presume is before us when interacting with a Korean, born and raised in Korea for seven years, who then spent five years as an immigrant’s child in the U.S. before his family moved to Kenya, where he finished his pre-university education at an in-

ternational school? Do we relate to him as a Korean? An American? A Kenyan? As a “third culture kid?” As none or all of the above?

Diversity programs also face new challenges. I recently spoke with the diversity director for a well-known uni-versity. As she bemoaned the lack of diversity in the pro-gram—the field she worked with was traditionally the realm of white males—I suggested they might intention-ally recruit someone from Asia or Africa.

“Oh, we have hundreds of them,” she said.

“Isn’t that diversity?” I asked.

“No, they’re in our International Department,” she re-plied.

“But doesn’t that bring diversity to your school?” I wondered. “Obviously, they bring other cultures and races to your campus.”

“Of course they do. But we’re about American diver-sity—working with issues of equity for African Ameri-cans, Hispanics, Native American Indians, women and gay people—while they work with the international stu-dents,” she informed me. “There is totally different fund-ing for each program and we virtually never mix.”

I then asked her where Lishawna would fit. Would her African American mom qualify her for American diversity or would her Barbadian dad mean she was in-ternational? What about Beth, who grew up internation-ally but whose citizenship is from the U.S.? What about another friend whose mother is a white American but whose dad is Nigerian? Would she fall on the interna-tional or diversity side of things—or neither?

“I have no idea,” was her honest answer.

Where Must We Go?

For today’s world, we need to add to the models of the past and look more closely at what happens when those

Who Am i, Really?...

11Spring 2012

with culturally complex backgrounds move out into the international or cross-cultural scene.

Some questions to consider include studying whether they, as might be assumed, are more effective at cultural bridging than those raised in only one culture. If so, can cross-cultural trainers build on the latent strengths such a background provides? If not, what unexpected obsta-cles to cultural competency might such individuals face? Do those raised in a “third culture” develop values or worldviews in common with fellow adult TCKs? If so, is there room in training programs for that “cultural” per-spective?

When Japanese sociologists and government began studying the phenomenon of TCKs, they examined how the experience of these individuals affected Japanese cul-ture upon their return to Japan. One researcher asked me how the TCK phenomenon had influenced culture in the U.S. I told her, frankly, that I didn’t think any of us had bothered to look at it. Perhaps the time has come to do so.

We must offer new models of cultural identity that in-clude a “both/and” approach instead of assuming every-one will fall into a traditional “either/or” slot. Growing up in many cultures is not the problem—it is trying to fit into pre-assigned slots in adolescence and adulthood that causes difficulties. Simply using wider cultural lan-guage and expanding the ways in which we define cul-tural identity today can go a long way in helping many find the sense of belonging for which they long.

Another important reason to take this growing cul-tural complexity seriously is that missing it often hurts individuals unnecessarily. One adult TCK I spoke with wanted to return to the country where she grew up—speaking the language, going to local schools and play-ing with local children every day—but her organization insisted she go through the same year of cultural and language training as everyone else.

She left the organization in total frustration. She felt her past experience, knowledge and even expertise had

been invisible to those who had hired her. Because she carried the same passport as the other new hires, no one seemed to consider how the experiences of her child-hood had shaped her in such different ways. I know of no group or company whose cross-cultural training pro-gram takes into account the challenge of preparing those who have grown up with cultural complexity compared to those venturing abroad for the first time.

Educators, also, may easily miss the hidden diversity in a group of students who physically resemble those of the dominant culture. They run the risk of misjudging the student—seeing him as “slow” or unmotivated—rather than recognizing the gaps in learning that may have come with moving from one very different curriculum or teaching style to another.

Those who work with traditional diversity models must acknowledge the ways this cultural mixing within individuals plays out in their programs. In a well-inten-tioned attempt to affirm the dignity and equality of all races, a school in Indiana began to place its students into “affinity groups” starting at the age of five. One year, an African American child who had grown up as a TCK had a Turkish friend in class who also happened to be a TCK. When the teacher put the African American child in a group with local black children, he asked if his Turkish friend could join them. The teacher said, “No—he can’t be in your group because he isn’t black.” The truth is, this child had more affinity with fellow globally mobile youth of any background than he did with those who shared only his skin color.

Where do we go from here? I would like to pro-pose a “next step” in the study of intercultural rela-tions. When cultures first began to engage one another, interculturalists pointed out that people of various cul-tures did not look at the world the same way. Unfortu-nately, this idea of difference based on visible markers and hard-and-fast concepts like race and national origin has too often become an endpoint. When we begin by emphasizing our differences, they too often come to de-fine us.

Continued on page 23...


In contrast, au pairs apply to the program for differ-ent reasons—notwithstanding their love for children. Most important are the desire to travel in the U.S. and explore the culture while improving their English and taking college courses. In applicants’ minds, the au pair program is an opportunity for exploration and growth, promising—among other things—an exciting cultural experience and a chance to expand their perspective. Brochures meant to attract au pair candidates primarily depict U.S. travel destinations, with groups of spirited young people involved in adventurous activities and vis-iting famous landmarks.

Marketing materials targeted toward potential host families, on the other hand, prominently feature pictures of au pairs engaging in various childcare activities with smiling, happy children. And yet, despite this disparity in agendas, the au pair program is a successful one, in part because the parties—usually the au pair—eventu-ally make significant adjustments in expectations. Evi-dently, prior to establishing their live-in relationship, the au pair and the host family approach the experience with different motivations and expectations. Sponsoring agencies make efforts to minimize these differences.

From the agency’s perspective, it does not make good business sense to advertise the fact that the au pair’s agen-da does not prioritize work and childcare; nor would it be wise to underscore that the year as an au pair requires a lot of hard work. By promoting the cultural exchange component to both parties, the sponsoring agency offers an acknowledgement of the cultural interaction between the au pair and host family, but fails to provide sufficient guided intervention for an intercultural learning oppor-tunity over the course of the year.

Each party receives different preparation for the inter-action. The State Department requires each au pair to undergo lengthy training, including child safety and cul-tural orientation, upon arrival in the U.S. Less system-atically, the program requires host families to attend one annual host family day, which agencies often organize around a social outing such as a park picnic or potluck event. It is up to each local community coordinator to

Every year, au pairs from around the world come to the United States through State Department–approved agencies for travel, cultural exchange,

and to provide live-in childcare while pursuing edu-cational credits. In return for working up to 45 hours per week caring for their host families’ children, au pairs receive room and board, a weekly stipend, and $500 to put toward tuition at an institution of higher education.

American host families consider the au pair program an extremely attractive childcare choice. Not only does the program provide stability and individualized care; it is also affordable. The average annual cost of an au pair is comparable to that of other forms of fulltime childcare, such as professional nannies, babysitters, and daycare centers. It is even more cost efficient if the family has more than one child, as total fees are the same regardless of the number of children under the au pair’s care.

Reality Viewed through Different Lenses

When asked why they consider hosting an au pair, most families cite affordability, dependable childcare and flexibility. Other perceived benefits include the fact that sponsoring organizations handle the screening, in-terviewing, training and orientation of the au pair, and provide medical insurance and regular monitoring of the relationship by a local representative. Au pair agencies offer a comprehensive one-stop shop to host families. It is no surprise, then, that economic and practical consid-erations are primary motivating factors for a host family’s choice of an au pair over other forms of childcare. In re-cent surveys, only 20 percent of host family respondents indicated that they were looking to gain an educational experience by hosting someone from another culture.

The Au Pair Program:Cultural Exchange or Consumer industry?

by Valli Murphy

Valli Murphy is Founder and Principal Trainer at Cultural Intersections, an intercultural training and consulting company that provides comprehen-sive programs to corporate expatriate executives, foreign exchange organizations and educational institutions. Valli is a Third Culture Kid.

13Spring 2012

decide whether the event will include an intercultural learning component or be structured as a fun, family-oriented day. While the au pair receives extensive train-ing and rigorous instruction, the family often receives little to no guidance or structured training to prepare it for an intercultural learning experience. Thus, not only are expectations vastly different; participant preparation is, also.

It is important to note that host families typically per-ceive the concept of a cultural exchange as an opportu-nity to share their lifestyle with the au pair—in other words, from an ethnocentric perspective. They often lack the curiosity that would lead to awareness of difference, development of empathy, and intercultural learning.

Central to intercultural learning is the acquisition of intercultural competence or sensitivity. Milton Bennett created his Development Model of Intercul-tural Sensitivity (DMIS) as “a framework to explain the observed and reported experiences of people in in-tercultural situations.”1 The DMIS defines intercultural sensitivity as “the ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences,” whereas intercultural com-petence means “the ability to think and act in intercul-turally appropriate ways.”2

Intercultural competence involves culturally sensitive knowledge, attitudes and behavior. Within the DMIS, intercultural sensitivity is viewed as a developmental phenomenon that includes six distinctly different in-tercultural worldviews, where the first three—denial, defense and minimization—are ethnocentric, while the last three—acceptance, adaptation and integration—are considered ethnorelative. In the ethnorelative stage, the individual has developed a worldview of increased com-plexity, having moved from a monocultural mindset to a more intercultural mindset.

Adaptation or Assimilation?

In response to the question, “How will you promote a cultural exchange with your au pair?” the overwhelm-

ing majority of host parents responded by saying that she or he would be welcomed as part of the family, and that whatever the family does, the au pair is free to join. This minimization perspective views the “other” as one who needs to assimilate and can do so easily. It also as-sumes that the “other” accepts the fact that his or her own cultural identity may be subsumed by a new ver-sion. Bennett describes minimization as “the last attempt to preserve centrality of one’s own worldview,” through “an effort to bury the difference under the weight of cul-tural similarities.”

Indeed, consistent with Bennett’s model, host families who view the au pair experience from a minimization perspective naïvely assume that the cultural differences

between them are superficial, and that the au pair’s goal is to become like his or her American hosts. Thus, when differences or problems arise, such issues are usually contextualized within the framework of personality ver-sus culture—evidence that host families do not clearly understand the effects of culture on behavior. Without proper guidance, host families lack the constructs with which to anticipate and frame their learning experiences. This is where agency oversight falls short.

Host Families: Participants or Recipients?

Although au pair sponsoring agencies promote an ideology of cultural exchange in their program materi-als, they are, nonetheless, in business to make money. To compete, they strive to make the application process as expedient and efficient as possible. To appeal to busy U.S. host families, the agencies now offer an online ap-plication option that allows them to instantly view and select applicant profiles. Over the last several years, agen-cies have amplified their marketing strategies, developing fully automated and virtually interactive processes. This new consumer-driven trend represents a significant de-parture from the traditional method of screening.

Host families... naïvely assume that the cultural differences between them are superficial.


In years past, host parents interested in welcoming an au pair were required to undergo a screening process that involved a detailed application and a formal offer of acceptance. During the first three decades of the pro-gram, local coordinators were personally responsible for prescreening and conducting in-home interviews prior to the family’s acceptance. The interview was an impor-tant venue for evaluating expectations, discussing roles and cultural differences, and exploring values. Now, for the most part, interviews are perfunctory—they are of-ten conducted after the application process is complete and after the family has identified a desired au pair can-didate. This has eliminated the local counselor’s ability to prescreen and, most importantly, to play a key role in structuring host family expectations as equal parts cul-tural exchange and childcare.

Thus, at the outset, a host family views the imminent relationship in financial and contractual contexts, and the evolving application process increasingly supports this. A service has been paid for and secured. The au pair program has become a fully automated, consumer- and cost-driven service industry. Simply by submitting a credit card number, a prospective host family can be-gin the selection process within a matter of minutes. The advent of the online application process has created an atmosphere of consumerism and product expediency in the minds of the host family; simply paying for a service creates a power dynamic between the consumer and the service provider rather than a shared partnership within the context of cultural exchange. The relationship be-comes that of an employer and an employee.

Another expression of the power relationship between hosts and au pairs is in the concomitant requirement of the au pair’s adaptation to the American way of life. In the opinion of most host parents, the measure of a “good” au pair is one who quickly and easily adjusts to the American lifestyle, including styles of discipline, modes of communication, acceptable hours of socializa-tion, forms of dress and food preferences, to name a few.

However, requiring the au pair to adapt and conform to all aspects of a foreign lifestyle within a relatively

short period of time is ambitious at best. It also com-promises the integrity of a cultural exchange when one party must repeatedly make adjustments in order to as-similate into the other’s frame of reference. Of course, host families have the right to instruct their au pairs and set parenting guidelines for their children according to their values and expectations. However, an authentic cultural exchange would allow for an open discussion of different childcare perspectives that would not be viewed as inherently “wrong” by either party, but rather as an exploration—and as the starting point to a meaningful and mutually respectful dialogue.

Unfortunately, au pairs wishing to better understand the unique, individualist parenting styles of their Ameri-can hosts are typically rebuffed or reproached when in-quiring about a child’s behavior; questions are seen as rude or probing, and host parents are often unsettled by the notion of alternative cultural norms and practices.

The imbalance of status that results from the imposi-tion of the host family’s norms and values onto the au pair is an accepted reality within their relationship. The onus of change falls almost entirely on the au pair, there-by diminishing opportunities for reciprocal intercultural learning, and host families are often missing both the curiosity to explore cultural differences in any depth and the intention to mutually adapt with their au pairs.

Contact vs. Exchange vs. Learning

Au pair agencies would greatly improve the experienc-es of both parties by facilitating intercultural learning. However, experience shows that putting people from different cultures together does not necessarily create an environment conducive to the development of intercul-tural relationships. Allport called the belief that contact with people of other cultures will help reduce prejudice and increase tolerance the “contact hypothesis.”3 Indeed, extensive research has found that contact between groups typically reduces prejudice. However, this does not nec-essarily translate into intercultural learning or develop-ment. As Bennett explained, “the goal of intercultural learning is empathy, not just tolerance.”4 The popular

The Au Pair Program...

15Spring 2012

literature on hosting implies interpersonal issues such as “surviving” the experience or “overcoming hurdles,” and rarely discusses authentic intercultural learning. One sig-nificant study by AFS in 1993 reported that mutual re-spect combined with a relationship that did not involve power struggles or control over the student by the host family resulted in better overall hosting experiences. Ida Catiglioni’s research on Italian host families found the descriptions of their experiences “in terms of positive and negative emotions and not in terms of acquisition of knowledge or the development of skills.”5 Au pair host families in the U.S. show similar trends.

To date, the idea that a homestay experience may fa-cilitate an intercultural learning opportunity for all par-ticipants has not been effectively promoted or explored by the industry. Less than one third of polled host fam-ilies from various au pair programs begin the program with a desire for a personal learning experience. Only 40 percent of host families agreed that their au pair agency fully prepared them; 30 percent said they had received sufficient cultural information before the au pair’s ar-rival, and only 13 percent indicated that their agency did everything it could have to facilitate a cultural exchange among the participants.

Data on pre-program expectations indicate that host families were minimally interested in sharing their life-styles or in practicing the traditions, habits and customs of their au pairs. Despite a lack of pre-program interest, 58 percent felt they garnered personal intercultural expe-riences, and 68 percent said they were successful in shar-ing their lifestyle throughout the au pair’s stay. When asked about what they learned, many host parents noted new knowledge gained in terms of improved manage-ment and more direct communication skills. There was no change in the respondents’ desire to practice their au pair’s traditions and customs—minimal interest trans-lated into minimal success.

These evaluations indicate that the desire for an inter-cultural learning experience was minimally important to host families, and that agencies did not do enough to prepare them for the hosting experience. It is little sur-

prise that, when agencies do not intentionally frame the experience as one of intercultural learning, families fail to anticipate the experience.

Study abroad professionals recognize that homestays and immersion programs without guided assistance are not enough for participants to develop intercultural competence. yet au pair programs, which promote the benefits of cultural exchange, lag far behind in this re-alization. By advertising cultural exchange to partici-pants without supporting opportunities for structured learning, they make an overt assumption that cultural exchange will 1) actually occur; 2) lead to intercultural learning experiences; and 3) be successful without help in processing and making meaning out of the experi-ences.

Clearly, there is a gulf between what agencies pro-mote and what they actually provide. Current research in the field of study abroad shows that intentional edu-cational interventions—before, during, and after the experience—significantly contribute to the intercultural learning process. The au pair exchange, thus, should be a two-way street between the host family and the au pair. The current paradigm of one-way adaptation of the au pair to the host family’s lifestyle is outdated and ineffec-tive.

Cultivating Intercultural Learning

Host families may not think cultural differences mat-ter; the mindset of minimization prevents people from grasping the importance of looking at things from other perspectives. To alleviate this, au pair programs should create conditions that spark inquiry and curiosity on the part of host families by first enabling them to recognize their own cultural realities via self-discovery and “cul-ture-general” training programs. Jannet Bennett writes, “At this stage, the first task is to call into question… comfortable assumptions about similarity through ex-amining [the learners’] own culture.”6 Training for more sophisticated intercultural competency would also em-phasize listening skills, withholding judgment, seeing


beyond superficial cultural sameness, and above all, de-veloping curiosity.

At the very least, by gaining a set of cognitive, affec-tive, and behavioral skills, host families may begin to abandon their tendency to minimize differences in favor of accepting them and managing them more effectively. Hopefully, positive experiences will engender more com-plex frameworks of reference; with support, acceptance will lead to both adaptation to and celebration of cul-tural differences.

Conclusion

The “consumerization” of the au pair program is a by-product of global trends. Agencies compete with each other on how to improve the expedience and logistics of a prospective host family’s application process; inter-cultural learning for the family remains an unexamined area. To mitigate consumerization, agencies must better prepare families for the hosting experience by providing greater support through pre-arrival training and mean-ingful, targeted intervention along the way.

For intercultural learning to occur, there must be an intentional and mutual effort toward adaptation by both parties; the host family must join its au pair in creating shared understanding. The process of learning can lead to the co-creation of shared experiences—a dialectic approach that embraces similarities, differences, expec-tations, and power dynamics within the relationship. Both parties must find a “dynamic in-betweenness” that encourages development of deep interpersonal relation-ships and results in the rich experience of mutual discov-ery. Neither party has to abandon its worldview in order to adapt to the other. i

Notes

1. M.J. Bennett, “Toward Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of In-

tercultural Sensitivity,” in Education for the Intercultural Experience, ed. R.M.

Paige (yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1993): 21–71.

2. M.R. Hammer, M.J. Bennett and R. Wiseman, “Measuring Intercultural

Sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory,” International Journal

of Intercultural Relations 27, no. 4: 421–443.

3. G.W. Allport, The nature of prejudice (Garden City, Ny: Doubleday,

1958).

4. M.J. Bennett, Forum for Intercultural Learning and Educators (FILE II),

Fondazione Intercultura, Colle Val d’Elsa, Italy, October 27, 2011.

5. I. Castiglioni, Intercultural Learning of Hosting Families, Intercultura

2012.

6. J.M. Bennett, “Turning Frogs Into Interculturalists: A Student-Centered

Developmental Approach to Teaching Intercultural Competence,” in Develop-

The Au Pair Program...

Crossing Barriers...continued from page 8

They must compare vocabulary and meaning as trans-lated; the interventionist must teach the linguist about the mission in depth.

When an interventionist and his interpreter build a successful partnership, practicing messages, their mean-ings and how best to relate them both verbally and non-verbally, the interventionist often finds his interpreter knows what he is going to say before he says it. Once the interventionist has built such a partnership with his lin-guist, the linguist is free to explain background context to the host population well in advance of any formal dialog between village leaders and interventionists. Such advance partnering can counter unrealistic expectations, allay suspicions of motive or intent, and create a power-ful and positive working atmosphere for both the team and its hosts.

Conclusion

Interventionists will continue to struggle to break down barriers of communication and culture in trau-matized societies; the significance of real-life experience cannot be overstated. What makes communicating and caring in traumatized societies possible is the dedica-tion that love and grief create. Tenzin Gyatso, the Da-lai Lama, suggests that our openness to the suffering of others constitutes compassion and a sense of responsibil-ity to those with whom we would intervene. This com-passion and sense of responsibility are what ultimately drive the success of interventionists striving to break the barriers of culture and language. i

17Spring 2012

Do employers value education abroad experi-ence? At first glance, the answer seems quite self-evident. How could they not? In a do-

mestic economy that becomes more linked to overseas markets and investors each year, companies must be on the cutting edge of new technological developments; al-ways looking for opportunities in emerging markets in the developing world; constantly assessing their work-force requirements to ensure that managers and workers understand the interrelated economic forces that impact their performance and the firms’ bottom line. Global-ization is the most powerful economic factor influenc-ing the job market in all regions of the world. Can we imagine the look of our global economy in 2025 and the skills and experience students will need, and employers will expect? What will the geopolitical landscape look like? Will students be interning and working in North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or Cuba? Can we pre-dict the industries and workforce needs that will emerge from the current political chaos in these regions?

Employers Do Value Education Abroad

In a report prepared by J. Walter Thompson Educa-tion for the Institute of International Education (IIE), the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), and the Australian Education Office, the company sought to determine employer acceptability and market value of an international degree among U.S. audiences—specifically students and employers. Its findings showed that “…em-ployers’ most important selection criteria in recruiting a candidate are interpersonal skills, and when questioned

employers believe that these skills are likely to be strong in a candidate who has had an overseas education experi-ence. The challenge really is to more effectively link and promote this connection… [emphasis added].”1

In addition, the study reported that employers also found that candidates with international study experi-ence possessed a wide range of skills desirable in their employees: these included, among others, cross-cultural communication skills, leadership, maturity, indepen-dence, and cultural awareness. While this finding would likely warm the heart of any international educator, one of the ironies of the research is that only 3 percent of students surveyed stated that they expressly chose to study overseas because they believed that employers see those with some sort of overseas experience as more em-ployable! This points to a key issue, if not a vexing con-flict, for the field: Should students be encouraged to go abroad for altruistic reasons—i.e. to widen their world view and experience another culture (a goal cited by 60 percent of students in the Thompson study)? Or should their decision to participate in education abroad experi-ences be linked more directly to future career goals and professional aspirations? Are these two points of view fundamentally incompatible, or are there opportunities before students depart, and after they return to campus, to integrate their international experiences with both their career goals and the hiring criteria of employers?

In my experience with graduate students studying in-ternational relations at The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), surveys of both students and employers (nonprofit, profit, public, and in international organizations) have left little doubt that students who enter SAIS with at least two to four years of prior professional experience are likely to have greater success in their job searches. The practical benefits of education and work abroad, internships, multilingual language competency, and the understanding of world issues gained from first-hand cross-cultural experience—especially in nonwestern states—is unquestionable. The need to link education and work abroad experience to career decision-making is also made more obvious given the finding that at least 90 percent of admitted students

The Right Tool for the Job

by Martin Tillman

Martin Tillman is President of Global Career Compass, an international consultancy that works with international education professionals, stu-dents, government agencies, academic programs and private providers to strengthen programs and expand linkages between education abroad and career development. He is also a Senior Career Development Consultant at World Learning SIT Graduate Institute.


are making career transitions—for example, from the public to the nonprofit sector.

The career services staff develops proactive action plans to assist students with the necessary self-assessment, re-search, and networking tasks they will need to realize their career goals after graduation. This includes reedit-ing resumes to fit new “career stories,” identifying in-ternships that will add value to their skill sets, assisting in self assessment to clarify values and skills, and review-ing how students will “pitch” their past professional ac-complishments to make a strong case to a new employer. Whether or not an undergraduate, at age 19, chooses to view his or her decision to intern, study, or work abroad in the context of his or her future prospects for landing

a job (and there is ample evidence that students at com-munity colleges must do exactly this), the time will in-evitably come when this is the challenge a student will face. The global marketplace will see to it.

New Skills and New Challenges in the Global Workforce

We are not only talking about large businesses or mul-tinational corporations being impacted by what’s been referred to as the “new economy” and a changing global political and economic landscape. Students leaving col-leges and universities with either AA, BA, MA, MS, MBA, or doctoral degrees all face a job market—wheth-er in the nonprofit, public, or private sectors—that is decidedly different than a generation ago. And the mar-ketplace demands increased adaptability, cross-cultural sensitivity, political awareness, and intellectual flexibility.

For example, workers for nongovernmental organiza-tions engaged in humanitarian relief work in Sudan or Iraq must learn how to manage volatile security threats on the ground. Their work may be compromised by

their need to rely on UN or national security forces to do their work. The U.S. Agency for International De-velopment has a new Global Development Alliance that seeks to leverage the resources of the private sector to support development in the developing world. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (a new U.S. gov-ernment body set up in 2004) is looking for staff with prior private sector business background to join its ef-forts to devise “compacts” with governments in selected emerging developing economies to meet their national development priorities. MBA schools have developed new curricula offerings to train students in international development as well as the hot field of corporate social responsibility. Teachers must manage classrooms where a majority of students are nonnative-born and more than

100 languages may be spo-ken throughout the school. The list goes on and on. And for every story about the changing U.S. workplace, there are others in emerging

regional market powers like China, India, Indonesia, Taiwan, or Singapore. Globalization’s impact on work-ers and the workplace has leaped across national borders and transcends cultures.

Partnerships between Businesses and Ed-ucational Institutions

In a provocative essay, Michael Woolf discusses the close and symbiotic relationship between universities and the business community.2 Citing the increased ac-ceptance of the value of education abroad by both educa-tors and business leaders, Woolf highlights the blurring of lines between the two sectors and a narrowing of the gap (for better and for worse, I would argue) between corporate interests and academic priorities. He describes how in the United Kingdom, business studies, especially MBA degree programs, have wildly expanded—from just two MBA programs in 1967 to 120 in 1997. And he describes how large companies are increasingly tak-ing on the educative role of a university by expanding employee training programs (from 400 to 1600 since 1988). Evidence to support this is found in recent re-

The Right Tool...

Students must build a sophisticated “toolkit” to market the value of their varied portfolio of international expe-riences to employers.

19Spring 2012

marks by the chairman and CEO of GE, Jeff Immelt, at a dinner marketing the 85th anniversary of the founding of IIE: “…this is a company [with 300,000 employees, half of whom live outside the United States] that spends $1 billion each year to train our employees.”3

NAFSA itself added global workforce development to its mission statement several years ago, in recognition of the importance both educators and business leaders at-tach to the education and training of U.S. and interna-tional students.

Global political and economic forces are reshaping, if not adding a new dimension to, the fundamental ratio-nale for education abroad. Businesses—along with the federal government (particularly in light of post–Sep-tember 11 focus on global security threats)—are taking a more active interest than ever before in the outcomes of education abroad experiences as they struggle to build a sophisticated and informed workforce. Whether it is the defense/intelligence community looking for analysts who speak Arabic and have experience in the Middle East, companies who are monitoring and assessing po-litical risk for their clients, or Bill Gates who cannot hire enough Americans with computer technology skills (and therefore seeks to raise the quota so he can hire more foreigners with H-1B visas), there is a growing and im-portant “economic development” rationale for widening opportunities for education abroad. Carol Conway cites four reasons to support this rationale: facilitating export development, paving the way for innovation, a better understanding of immigrants in the workforce, and re-ducing the gap between haves and have-nots in Ameri-can society.4 In each instance, Conway explains how the synergy of global and local interests, need for under-standing, awareness, and cultural sensitivity, and expan-sion of opportunity for global careers to minorities are all drivers for expanded linkages between the economic and national security benefits of education abroad.

Nancy Arthur at the University of Calgary adds a cautionary note to the internationalization of the mar-ketplace and our universities. She states, “[internation-alization] must be tempered with social and ethical

considerations… If the 1990s can be described as the century of technological advances, this century will be a time to examine the impact of globalization on peo-ple’s lives… Globally minded employees of the future are needed who see beyond economic gain and see the importance of considering human and ecological costs.”5

Marketing Education Abroad Experience to Employers

Numerous essays have appeared extolling the virtues and global competencies learned through both long and short-term education abroad experiences. There is, in fact, a growing body of new empirical research validat-ing the long-standing anecdotal reporting of the positive outcomes of education abroad experiences. As Adler and her colleagues at San Diego State University write in a newly published essay, “New research is now informing those institutions intent on assessing the effectiveness of their campus internationalization efforts, and it is help-ing international educators learn not only what to evalu-ate, but more importantly, how to evaluate their success in preparing students for their global workforce.”6

Such empirical evidence, coupled with the pressure of preparing students to enter the workforce and effectively compete in a global economy, have turned around ad-ministrative resistance to “internationalize,” as campuses realize that to do otherwise handicaps students in realiz-ing their career goals and succeeding in their job search-es.

While employers believe job applicants with education abroad experiences are most likely to possess the skill sets they seek in their employees, they do not value educa-tion abroad—or related international experiences—for its own sake. Employers are, however, actively interested in whether or not a job applicant demonstrates that as a result of their experiences abroad, they have developed the requisite skills and sensitivity that makes them stand out as the strongest candidate for a particular job.

Thus, the challenge facing students is to successfully translate what they learned abroad into accomplishment


statements on their resumes, and to effectively articulate and clearly describe these skills during their job inter-views. Students must build a sophisticated “toolkit” to market the value of their varied portfolio of internation-al experiences to employers.7

The capability to interpret the value of an education abroad experience to an employer is made easier if a stu-dent’s decision to go abroad is linked to his or her ca-reer goals. The challenge to education abroad advisers and career service professionals on campuses is whether or not they act proactively to assist students to take full advantage of their overseas sojourns. This requires the concerted collaboration of faculty, career staff, and study abroad advisers prior to the start of the journey.

Efforts to develop innovative campus programs and institute new collaborative administrative relationships between offices of career services and study abroad advis-ing can be found across the United States. In a volume I edited for the American Institute for Foreign Study Foundation,8 authors described numerous examples on campuses; among them are these:

• The annual University of Michigan International Opportunities Fair brings together 500 students, 40 organizations and diverse administrative units across campus.

• The University of Minnesota Career Development Network unites 17 distinct career offices and the Learning Abroad Center to coordinate and share information regarding the application of career de-velopment practices to study abroad advising.

• The Boston College Global Proficiency Program seeks to integrate academic, co-curricular, and study abroad experiences to give students a more cohesive focus and document—on student tran-scripts—their international accomplishments.

At the end of the day, it is up to students to make the case and demonstrate the link between their internation-al experiences and the specific skills valued by the com-

panies or organizations they want to work for. This task is made easier if study abroad advisers and career services staff work together to highlight the synergy of a carefully thought-through decision-making process linking the choice of an education abroad program to the students’ near-term career goals. i

This article originally appeared in the July/August 2005 edition of International Educator magazine. Reprinted with permission from the copyright holder, NAFSA: Asso-ciation of International Educators.

Notes

1. J.W. Thompson, “An Exploration of the Demand for Study Overseas

From American Students and Employers” (report prepared for Institute of

International Education, the German Academic Exchange Service, the British

Council, and the Australian Education Office, 2004).

2. Michael Woolf, “Education and Business: It Takes Two to Tango,” Interna-

tional Educator Spring (2004): 33–34.

3. Institute of International Education, “Opening Minds Corporate Leader-

ship Award to GE Chairman Jeff Immelt,” IIE Networker Spring (2005):

32–33.

4. Carol Conway, “An Economic Development Perspective on Education

Abroad,” International Educator Spring (2004): 34.

5. Nancy Arthur, “Preparing Globally Minded Students and Employers,”

NATCOM Papers (2000): 3.

6. Renatte Adler, Steve Loughrin-Sacco, and Ron Moffatt, “The Role of

Experiential Learning in Preparing Global-Ready Graduates,” in Impact of

Education Abroad on Career Development, ed. Martin Tillman (Stamford, CT:

American Institute for Foreign Study, 2005), 15–17.

7. Cheryl Matherly, “Effective Marketing of International Experiences to

Employers,” in Impact of Education Abroad on Career Development, ed. Martin

Tillman (Stamford, CT: American Institute for Foreign Study, 2005), 9–10.

8. Martin Tillman, ed., Impact of Education Abroad on Career Development

(Stamford, CT: American Institute for Foreign Study, 2005).

The Right Tool...

21Spring 2012

Facilitating multicultural groups often presents unique challenges that require additional prepara-tion for trainers and educators. While our work as

interculturalists is to help others learn about culture, we may sometimes forget to practice what we preach. In all cases, we must do a careful analysis of the different cul-tures present in our trainings or classrooms—not only to determine the content of the course material, but also to gauge how we should best respond to the different needs and expectations of our audience. It is important to re-member that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to training and teaching doesn’t work in every cultural context. It is therefore necessary, in certain circumstances, to “style switch” in order to engage those students and partici-pants whose styles may differ from our own.

Being a trainer is like being an actor—you need to set the stage, improvise when necessary, and engage your audience. Engagement, however, can be interpreted very differently across cultures. For some, it might mean ex-cessive enthusiasm, being humorous, and literally put-ting on a show. For others it might entail a more subtle delivery, focused heavily on in-depth content. Knowing your audience allows you to find ways to integrate differ-ent styles to meet everyone’s expectations. In the U.S., for example, it is common to start a presentation in a light-hearted manner by using humor or telling a joke. This style would be perceived as completely inappropri-ate in the Japanese or German cultures, where the use of humor could cause the trainer to lose her credibility. In Japan, it is customary to apologize profusely as a way to show humility towards others, while in Germany, pro-viding facts about your academic credentials to clarify your qualifications is the norm. One American trainer,

well versed in such nuances of culture, adeptly addressed an American-Japanese audience by stating the different expectations between the two cultures and then apolo-gizing for not telling a joke. Such an ability to integrate different styles allows trainers and educators not only to enhance their credibility as intercultural experts but also to fully engage their audiences.

“Style switching” can be defined as the ability to in-terrupt your normal behaviors and adapt to the pre-dominant behavioral norms of your audience to reach a desired outcome. It is a useful tool to enhance effective-ness when you are trying to realize your goals, communi-cate your ideas and successfully collaborate with others. However, switching is different from just “going along” with a different way of doing things—and abandoning your original intent or objectives in the process. Instead, it requires the intentional decision to adopt a certain behavior. It is much more than the old adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” which can in fact be fraught with potential mishaps.

For example, if working with a French group, you might observe people entering the training room to faire la bise—giving a light “air kiss” to their colleagues on each cheek. According to the adage, you might easily as-sume this is a standard greeting. However, while strang-ers may font la bise upon meeting one another in a social context, it is only common to do so in a professional environment once a trusting relationship has formed. At the same time, not adhering to typical French business protocol by entering a training room and failing to greet each of the trainees individually with a handshake might also convey disrespect.

The German writer von Goethe once said, “Behav-ior is a mirror in which everyone displays his image.” Our behaviors are central to how others view us. As interculturalists, we are—presumably—keenly aware of how hidden aspects of who we are shape them, such as our cultural values and beliefs as well as our personali-ties. However, the more we can be aware of the image we present to our audiences and the more we can observe and inform ourselves about the images others display,

Style Switching for Success in Multicultural Groups

by Julia Gaspar-Bates

Julia Gaspar-Bates is president of Intercultural Alliances, a cross-cultural training and consult-ing firm, and an adjunct professor at The George Washington University. She has trained hundreds of multicultural groups in multiple languages on four continents and frequently uses mindfulness skills to help her adopt different behaviors when she finds herself out of her comfort zone.


the more we can adapt our behaviors situationally. De-veloping self-awareness requires a keen desire to explore what makes us tick. This means that the more we can ar-ticulate how our values, beliefs, and attitudes shape our approach to facilitation, the more we can be aware how they are reflected in our behavior as trainers or educa-tors.

For instance, it is common in the U.S. to address workshop participants or students informally, on a first-name basis. When you encounter different behaviors from your trainees—repeatedly addressing you by your last name, for example—you should recognize the dis-comfort your own behavior may cause and find a way to adapt. Invite them to call you by your first name and then, as a sign of respect, asking them each how they would like to be addressed. This may be particularly im-portant with participants from cultures that favor hierar-chy and are status-oriented.

It is important to remember, however, that in all situ-ations we must work within constraints. We each have core values that affect our behavior and may be non-ne-gotiable. For example, a Muslim woman coming from a society where gender segregation is the norm may have a difficult time shaking hands with a male trainer. Be-ing aware of such cultural taboos can help the trainer avoid uncomfortable encounters that could cause loss of trust and credibility right from the start. Conversely, there are certain behaviors that are negotiable and that we can more easily adopt. As a trainer, it is important to consider in advance what these non-negotiable behaviors might be and to take into account alternative behaviors to avoid such pitfalls.

Skills for Style Switching

Style switching therefore requires certain key skills to be done effectively. The first, as mentioned, is self-aware-ness. Knowing your particular strengths and weaknesses as a trainer or educator, understanding your cultural biases and any stereotypes you might hold, and being aware of your style of delivery and how you interact with your audience are critical first steps to understanding

your behavior. Along these same lines, being aware of the other cultures present is vital. If you are working with a group made up of five or six different cultures, learn-ing some of the fundamentals about them is essential. This might entail including questions during the needs assessment process to find out about different modes of learning, to gain insight into preferred communication styles within the group, and to assess any special needs. If you have no familiarity with the cultures, do some preliminary research. Integrate a nugget or two on the participants’ cultures into your discussions to show you are knowledgeable and credible.

Next, it is important to be a keen observer. Observ-ing interpersonal interactions, group dynamics, and other behaviors will provide some indication of what to expect; it will allow you to consider behaviors you may need to change in order to promote cohesiveness and participation. For example, if you come from an egalitar-ian culture like the U.S., you might expect trainees to take initiative by asking questions or freely sharing com-ments during a discussion. However, students coming from more hierarchical cultures may not be comfortable doing so. In this case, to engage everyone might require an additional effort on the trainer’s behalf—inviting people to speak and giving priority to participants of higher rank first.

Style switching demands energy in addition to flexibil-ity and adaptability. When we have a strong emotional investment in a certain behavioral style, it can be more challenging for us to effectively switch to a more cul-turally appropriate one. For example, you might prefer an informal atmosphere in your trainings or classroom to invite open dialogue and self-disclosure, yet you are working with a group that prefers a more structured, for-mal, and didactic approach.This puts additional pressure on you, as trainer or teacher, as it requires a complete shift in teaching style to a more lecture-based approach. A carefully written role play you believe to be a valuable learning activity may therefore need to be abandoned at the last minute, if you realize your group will not be re-ceptive to the idea of acting spontaneously in front of others without advanced preparation. To shift gears at

Style Switching...

23Spring 2012

the last minute without compromising the integrity of the training’s content requires advance planning. It is also always wise to allocate extra time to take different cultural attitudes toward time into account.

Finally, practicing mindfulness skills—such as the abil-ity to detach yourself from outcomes—can alleviate the anxiety that often plagues people when speaking in pub-lic. Also, developing empathy and compassion for the challenges your participants may encounter is central to connecting with them. For example, varying levels of English create frequent linguistic challenges. As a trainer or educator, recalling the times you have struggled dur-ing an intercultural interaction will help you be mindful of different approaches to communication. With this in mind, you might speak more slowly or allow for longer periods of silence as your audience translates and con-templates its response. It is also important to be cog-nizant of your choice of words and expressions and to remain aware of “loss-of-face” issues. Even singling out an individual in a complimentary manner might have a negative impact and be perceived as disrespectful by par-ticipants coming from group-oriented cultures.

Conclusion

In summary, some behaviors are inherent to our cul-ture and strongly impact the way we work as intercul-tural trainers and educators. It is easy to become overly confident because of our familiarity with the topic, and wearing blinders is an all-too-common consequence. In particular, if we often work with monocultural audienc-es, we can easily get caught in our own trap and forget that our stylistic approach to training or teaching may not appeal to everyone. Stepping out of our comfort zone is a good opportunity for us to take stock of our behaviors and consider which methods work and which do not. It is also good practice for us to develop a rep-ertoire of different behavioral styles that we can apply, when necessary, to allow us to truly “walk the walk.” i

I have seen some TCKs react with such relief at dis-covering a name for their unique experience that they emphasized this identity to the exclusion of all others. They began to believe that no one who had not shared this experience could ever understand them at all. The reality is that this growing cultural complexity will render defining and sub-defining all the distinguishing characteristics of each person nearly impossible. Before we divide ourselves into a million pieces, I propose we begin to look not only at our differences, but also to reconsider the likenesses we share as human beings—as well as those things which make each of us unique.

Please note that likeness is not sameness. No one is “the same.” However, we all do share our basic human-ity. Humans of all backgrounds are relational beings who want to know and be known—to belong some-where. They are also emotional beings who feel loss and creative beings who need to express the creativity inher-ent within them. They can think and find solutions to the challenges of their environments.

The list goes on, but the bottom line is that culture often serves as a tool to meet these basic needs. We devise customs that govern our relationships, our emo-tions and our expressions, yet our needs are the same. The greatest gift of my cross-cultural childhood was learning this reality, not from books, but from interact-ing with friends who lived in the villages around us or from going to a colonial friend’s home for tea. yes, these experiences were very different, but the human connec-tions they created were real and wonderful.

On the other hand, as we understand the ways in which we are alike, we can begin to find new ways to discover how our unique experiences and gifts shape us each individually. When that sense of self is strong—that “This is who I am, no matter where I am,” feel-ing—there is also remarkable resiliency. Only then can we begin to learn the ways of each new culture and place, to interact positively, without fear of losing “us” as we move to include “them.” This is the beauty and the gift of growing up with a culturally complex sense of identity in a globalized world. i

Who Am i...continued from page 11

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

spring 2012 imq

Documents

intercultural relations

crisis communication

weavermanaging editor

editor staffpublisher

regular imq contributor

veteran imq contributor

patrick christian

influence of culture