Using Microworlds to Understand Cultural Influences on Distributed Collaborative Decision Making in C2 Settings

As a means to facilitate coordination of international relief teams during sudden onset disasters, the UN has formed a structure called the On Site Operations Coordination Center (OSOCC). The main objective of the OSOCC is to coordinate international relief teams and help local authorities re-establish control in the affected area. As with any operation where people from different parts of the world are involved, multiculturalism can become an issue. Differences in values, norms and attitudes can create problems in communication, planning and execution of the operation. We use the C3Fire microworld and the Schwartz Value Survey as our main instruments to study cultural influences in command and control decision making in simulated OSOCC. The C3Fire microworld has been used extensively in research on networked-based command and control. Augmented with observation of a real OSOCC exercise, the experimental studies provide the basis for formulating clusters of behavioral differences in command and control that one can expect to encounter during an international operation. Results show that culturally-driven differences in planning and leadership style can pose potential barriers to efficient decision making in multicultural command-and-control centers. Introduction In 1988, a major earthquake struck Armenia. Many international relief teams came to help Armenian authorities to deal with the emergency. In the aftermath of the Armenian earthquake and other natural disasters, stories were told of international teams accidentally searching the same villages over and over while leaving other areas unsearched, resulting in many deaths. It became widely recognized that there was a need for more timely and coordinated response from international relief teams and that their work must not be a burden on the stricken country’s resources. As a means to facilitate coordination of international relief teams during sudden onset disasters, a structure called the On Site Operations Coordination Center (OSOCC) was created. The UN considers the OSOCC to be a coordination structure, not a command and control (C2) center. The purpose of an OSOCC is not to command international relief teams during the aftermath of a disaster. Rather, its purpose is to make impartial and transparent recommendations about how local authorities might choose to coordinate the efforts of the international relief teams. To use the label “command and control” to describe an OSOCC is therefore politically, and to some extent procedurally, incorrect. However, the recommendations made by the OSOCC strongly influence the relief effort and effectively function as executive directives. Moreover, the main objective of the OSOCC is to re-establish control in the affected area. Pragmatically, if not politically, it is appropriate to consider OSOCC work in the light of what is known about C2 decision making. This paper has six parts. We first discuss culture and its potential impacts on decision making in C2 settings. The second part provides a description of the On-Site Operations Coordination Center (OSOCC) structure and function. The third part provides an overview of microworlds in general and of the C3Fire microworld specifically. The fourth part discusses the two studies we have conducted to capture cultural influences on decision making in C2 settings. The results from the two studies are presented in part five. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the two studies for OSOCC specifically and command and control generally that proposes four clusters of culturally-driven differences in expectations and preferences for collaborative decision making. 11th ICCRTS Ida Lindgren and Kip Smith 3 Note that we have not conducted an exhaustive survey of how people from different cultures act in C2 settings. Our aim is more modest: to identify clusters of behavioral differences in C2 decision making that one can expect to encounter during an international operation. If clustering of differences becomes an accepted part of training programs for C2 personnel, it may help them bridge cultural barriers in OSOCC and other multicultural C2 settings. Culture and C2 decision making We argue that culture is a strong influential factor in international C2 operations. It is therefore relevant to first define what culture is. Most people have some idea, drawn from their own culture’s folk psychology, of what the concept ‘culture’ means. These ideas tend to fall short because culture is a complex phenomenon. Triandis (1996) points out that while there are many definitions of culture, there is wide agreement that the elements of culture are shared by those with a common language, within a specific historic period, and a contiguous geographic location. Among these elements are customs, values and religious beliefs. These and other elements provide standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating, communicating, and acting. Culture is not encoded in our DNA but is propagated by interpersonal relations within a given physical environment (Duranti, 1997). In line with Duranti, Kim and Markus (1999) argue that cultures are composites formed by the immediate contingencies of specific sociohistorical circumstances and of individual actions. Culture emerges and is sustained by social relations within highly specific contexts. For succinctness, we adopt Smith and Bond’s (1999, p. 39) definition and interpret it through the lens provided by Triandis and Duranti: a culture is a relatively organized system of shared meanings. Culture’s relation to cognition and communication Our cultural heritage influences how we think, speak and act, and cannot easily be ignored. The influence of culture on cognition is partially revealed by studying language and communication. Innumerable studies have compared communication patterns across cultures (see e.g. Di Luzio, Günthner & Orletti, 2001) and found cultural influences on communication. Not only do we have different languages, but also different communication styles. For example, turn-taking differs remarkably between cultures. At one extreme, Swedes are known to listen quietly to the speaker and wait for their turn to talk (Daun, 1998; 1999). Interest in what the speaker is saying is displayed through silent attention. This style is reflected in the expression “att tala i munnen på någon annan” (to speak in someone’s mouth) which means to speak at the same time as someone else. Interrupting or speaking in someone’s mouth is considered very impolite and is something Swedish children learn at an early age not to do. Swedes, amongst others (e.g. Finnish people, Navajos in North America), are widely known for being a quiet people and for appreciating silence and solitude. In contrast, many Mediterranean cultures (e.g. Spaniards, Bosnians, Italians) encourage lively discussion where turn taking is less organized than in Swedish conversations and where the listener often shows his/her interest through talking aloud together with the speaker. In these cultures, there is no comparable expression as the Swedish ‘to speak in someone’s mouth’, because that is simply how they are comfortable talking. It is therefore not impolite; on the contrary, it can be impolite to listen quietly. A quiet listener signals boredom. This does not mean that Mediterranean people like to communicate more than Scandinavians. It merely means that these cultures have communication styles in which participation and intent is displayed very differently (Daun, 1998). This example illustrates how conflicts could arise in multicultural groups. Consider a group of Swedes and Spaniards asked to work together with no prior experience with the other culture. Initially, their different communication styles would likely initially pose barriers to efficient cooperation, since each might perceive the other’s communication style as insulting or rude. Culture and values In 1980, Gert Hofstede published his book Culture’s Consequences which discussed a study that is still considered impressively extensive (Smith and Bond, 1999). He managed to collect questionnaire 11th ICCRTS Ida Lindgren and Kip Smith responses from more than 100,000 individuals from around the world. The questionnaires concerned various aspects of employees’ work experience that could be tied to fundamental human values. From this material, Hofstede was able to make comparisons across countries. The study now includes more than 60 nations (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Hofstede’s aim – and indeed it remains the aim of most of cross-cultural psychology (Smith and Bond, 1999) – was to map cultures on the basis of variables that can be directly linked to fundamental human values. Hofstede (1980) used factor analysis to extract core ‘dimensions’ of human values, and compared relative weights given to each dimension across countries. This effort generated four bipolar core dimensions and national rankings for the sampled countries along each dimension. The dimensions are explained in Table 1. Definitions are taken from Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) and Smith and Bond (1999, p. 45). Table 1: Hofstede's four core dimensions Dimension Explanation Power distance: The extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally Uncertainty avoidance: The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations Individualism /Collectivism: Individualism: One’s identity is defined by personal choices and achievements. In contrast, Collectivism: One’s identity is defined by the character of the collective groups to which one is more or less permanently attached. Masculinity /Femininity: Masculinity emphasizes achievement. Femininity emphasizes interpersonal harmony. While informative, Hofstede’s rankings are averages calculated from thousands of individuals. As averages, they reveal only the central tendency and conceal the variability of individual differences. The rankings falsely imply that national cultures are “unitary systems free from variation, conflict and dissent” (Smith and Bond, 1999, p. 42). There is, of course, considerable individual variability within all cultures (Hofstede, 2001). Nevertheless, Hofstede’s dimensions and rankings remain valid indicators of national culture. More recently, Shalom Schwartz (1992, 1994) has become a central figure in theoretically-grounded cross-cultural psychology. The widespread acceptance of Schwartz’s instrument and the explanatory power of his configural model of “value types” have led us to adopt the Schwartz model and methodology. Schwartz rooted his study of values in a framework of human evolutionary needs (Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987, 1990). He identified in the previous literature a set of 57 human values (e.g., creativity, curiosity, pleasure, wealth, and health) each of which had been noted in more than one culture. He developed a survey instrument that he and his colleagues have used to collect data from individuals from more than 50 national cultures. The survey asks respondents to rate each of the 57 values “As a guiding principle in my life,” using the nine-point scale shown in Figure 1. The –1 is unusual but highly useful. It allows respondents to indicate a “negative” value – a value they seek to avoid expressing or promoting through their choices and behavior. Opposed to my values Of supreme importance Very important Important Not important -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Figure 1: The 9 point response scale used in the Schwartz value survey. The extreme scores ( -1 and 7) are used to anchor the ratings.