Rocket: A Simulation on Intercultural Teamwork 1931930821, 9781931930826
Rocket: A simulation on Intercultural Teamwork (Lessons from the International Space Station) is an interactive simulati
136 42 455KB
English Pages 100 [103] Year 2009
Recommend Papers
- Author / Uploaded
- Jessica Hirshorn
File loading please wait...
Citation preview
Rocket
Rocket A Simulation on Intercultural Teamwork Jessica HiRsHoRn
First published by Intercultural Press, an imprint of Nicholas Brealey Publishing, in 2010. Nicholas Brealey Publishing 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1115A Boston, MA 02116, USA Tel: + 617-523-3801 Fax: + 617-523-3708 www.interculturalpress.com
Nicholas Brealey Publishing 3-5 Spaield Street, Clerkenwell London, EC1R 4QB, UK Tel: +44-(0)-207-239-0360 Fax: +44-(0)-207-239-0370 www.nicholasbrealey.com
© 2010 by Jessica Hirshorn. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. Printed in the United States of America 14 13 12 11 10
12345
ISBN: 978-1-931930-82-6 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hirshorn, Jessica. Rocket : a simulation on intercultural teamwork / Jessica Hirshorn. p. cm. ISBN 978-1-931930-82-6 1. Intercultural communications—Simulation games. 2. Cultural relations—Simulation games. 3. Teams in the workplace—Simulation games. 4. Diversity in the workplace—Simulation games. I. Title. HM1211.H572 2010 303.48'2071—dc22 2009036109
contents
PaRt one the simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Overview
3
Audience
5
Immediate Crisis Situation
6
General Objectives for Participants
6
Speciic Objectives by Specialization
7
Objectives for International Businesspeople, Nongovernmental Organizations or Mission Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Objectives for Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Objectives for Student Service Professionals . . . . . . . . 7 Objectives for Students Studying Outside of Home Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Objectives for Health Care Professionals . . . . . . . . . . 8 Preparation
8
Time Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
vi
Contents
Group Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Room Set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Materials Needed for Two-Hour Simulation
11
List of Possible Recyclable Materials for Building the Rocket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 List of Materials to be Shared by All Four Agencies . . . 12 Additional Materials Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Materials Needed for One-Hour Simulation
15
Explanation of Rule Sheets
16
Explanation of Roles and Role Cards
16
Simulation Day
17
Form Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Introduce the Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Read the Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Deal with Latecomers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Allow for Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Explain Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Food for Thought. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Ending the Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Debrieing
22
Suggested General Simulation Process Questions . . . 22 Speciic Debrieing Questions by Specialization. . . . . 24
Contents
Suggested Possible Questions: International Businesspeople, Nongovernmental Organizations or Mission Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Debrieing Questions: Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Debrieing Questions: International Student Service Professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Debrieing Questions: Students Studying Outside of Home Country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Debrieing Questions: Health Care Practitioners . . . . 28 Preparation Check List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Two-Hour Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 One-Hour Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Rule Sheets and Role Cards
35
Rule Sheet for RSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Rule Sheet for JAXA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Rule Sheet for ESA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Rule Sheet for NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Russian (RSA) Agency Role Cards
44
Japanese (JAXA) Agency Role Cards
46
European (ESA) Agency Role Cards
48
American (NASA) Agency Role Cards
50
vii
viii
Contents
PaRt two supplemental Reading—Misunderstandings . . . 53 Instructions for Use
55
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
56
Language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Trust and Relationship Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Pride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Saving Face and Communication Styles. . . . . . . . . . 74 Work Ethic and Time Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Politics and Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Compromises and Negotiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Rocket
Pa R t o n e
the simulation
oveRview Rocket is an interactive simulation designed to help participants experience intercultural diferences and misunderstandings and become sensitive to the complexity of the cultural, personal and corporate aspects of interaction. Ater participating in Rocket, participants will have an opportunity to discuss what they have learned. his simulation is based on qualitative interviews done at NASA’s Johnson Space Center on the intercultural interactions that take place in the International Space Station (ISS) Program between astronauts, trainers, engineers, light directors and administrators. Rocket simulates the real-life interactions and politics of four of the Space Station agencies—Russia (Russian Space Agency—or RSA), Japan (Japanese Aeronautics Exploration Agency—or JAXA), Europe (European Space Agency—or ESA) and the United States (National Aeronautics Space Agency—or NASA)—and requires participants to work together to assemble a model rocket. Participants are divided into four teams, each representing one of the four agencies above. Each team receives a set of cultural rules that its members must follow when interacting
4
ROCKET
within their agencies and with the other agencies. he rules include culture-speciic information about the following cultural characteristics: 0
Language Use
0
Decision Making
0
Trust and Relationship Building
0
Pride
0
Face Saving and Communication Styles
0
Work Ethic and Time Orientation
0
Politics and Economics
0
Compromise and Negotiation
Participants must work together with the other space agencies to build a model rocket. Each agency is assigned a speciic rocket part to build and asked to work together as a team and also to coordinate and negotiate with the other agencies to assemble the rocket. he full version of the simulation requires approximately two hours, although it can be shortened to one hour by using pre-assembled model rocket parts. he full two-hour version is recommended in order to give participants time to seriously take on their roles and to work within their own groups to discover diferences among the various professional roles represented. he participants of each agency will irst read and study their rule sheets and become comfortable with the rules that they are given. Next they will work together to develop a plan for their rocket contribution. hey will then consult with the other space agencies to build their part of the rocket so that it is
Audience
proportional and integrates well with other rocket parts. Next, they will work together to assemble the rocket. he participants’ inal task is to compose a message to the astronauts aboard the Space Station, informing them of a serious communication breakdown. Ater the ISS agencies have built the rocket and written the message, the facilitator(s) will hold a debrieing session so that participants are able to process what they have learned and address questions and concerns that the simulation brought to light for them. he debrieing section includes questions that are speciically geared toward the issues that have come up among participants’ personalities and their perspective nations.
audience Rocket is a fun and interactive simulation, designed for anyone who may be conducting intercultural training, classes or workshops for a variety of audiences, such as corporate executives and high-level managers, teachers, student service professionals, study abroad students, international students, business professionals, health care workers, city services personnel, adult educators, nongovernmental organizations, etc. he simulation provides intercultural trainers and others with an additional resource to use when planning training sessions and workshops for groups who work in diverse environments. Rocket ofers an alternative to existing intercultural simulations like Barnga or BaFA BaFA and is designed for use with groups from 13–25 participants, but it can be modiied for use with groups as small as 4 or as large as 30.
5
6
ROCKET
iMMediate cRisis situation Space debris has hit and knocked out the satellite communication system that is used to communicate with the International Space Station. It may be a few months before communication can be restored, so the international partners at the International Space Station (ISS) oices have decided to launch a mini rocket to the Space Station with a message inside that lets the Station astronauts know what has happened and to assure them that the ISS agencies are working with all possible speed to restore communication. he participants’ job is to work together both as individual teams (Russian, American, European and Japanese) as well as with the other international agencies to build a rocket to send a joint message to the astronauts aboard the Space Station.
GeneRal obJectives foR PaRticiPants 0
Recognize some of the diferences in intercultural communication styles among the four simulation teams.
0
Discuss the cultural misunderstandings that occurred during the simulation.
0
Recognize the compromises that are needed to work together as a multinational team.
0
Gain a better understanding of intercultural group dynamics.
0
Discuss the diiculties of separating cultural diferences from personality types.
Speciic Objectives by Specialization
sPecific obJectives by sPecialization
objectives for international businesspeople, nongovernmental organizations or Mission Groups 0
Discuss how difering concepts of time afects business transactions and meetings.
0
Discuss how business protocol and power diferentials vary from country to country.
0
Gather insight into international relations and political dynamics.
objectives for teachers 0
Distinguish how students’ cultural norms may be diferent from their own and from each other.
0
Explore issues related to the use of English in a mixed classroom composed of native and non-native English speakers.
0
Brainstorm what strategies a multicultural teacher can use to be more efective.
objectives for student service Professionals 0
Identify the normative diferences that exist between international and host-country students.
7
8
ROCKET
0
Understand how political and economic issues afect a student’s experience.
0
Discuss cultural adaptation issues.
objectives for students studying outside of Home country 0
Gain a better understanding of how cultural norms may vary.
0
Discuss potential cultural adaptation and adjustment issues.
0
Increase insight of potential political and economic issues.
0
Expand awareness of intercultural group dynamics.
objectives for Health care Professionals 0
Discuss how the cultural norms and traditional health care practices of clients vary.
0
Explore how cultural norms, religion, language and gender afect patient care.
PRePaRation
time schedule If you choose to do the full version of the simulation, you will need about two hours:
Preparation
0
5 minutes:
Introduction of the simulation
0
10 minutes:
Participants read the rules
0
20 minutes:
Participants work within agencies to develop a plan and assign roles
0
45 minutes:
Participants work with the other space agencies to build the model rocket
0
40 minutes:
Debrieing
If you can allow only one hour for the simulation, you can do a modiied version by using pre-prepared rocket parts: 0
5 minutes:
Introduction of the simulation
0
5 minutes:
Participants read the rules
0
10 minutes:
Participants work within their agencies to develop a plan and assign roles
0
20 minutes:
Participants work with the other space agencies to assemble the rocket
0
20 minutes:
Debrieing
Group size his simulation ideally is to be used with participant groups from 13–25 participants, as mentioned earlier, but it can be adapted for groups from 4 to 30. For groups larger than 25, ask participants not assigned to a group to be observers of the simulation, watching for authentic country-assigned rules or ask them to create their own roles. If you have more than 30 participants, you will want to facilitate two separate training sessions
9
10
ROCKET
at diferent times. For groups smaller than 13, either omit the use of role cards or ask participants to take on more than one role. If you are not using role cards, make sure that participants have a plan to meet all of the objectives that are listed on their rule sheets. he size of the American, Russian, Japanese and European agencies can vary from three participants per agency (Program Manager, Lead Engineer and Financial Oicer) to six by adding a Communications Oicer, an Administrator and an Integrator). he Russian team requires an additional player to act as interpreter.
Room set-up he room used for the training session should ideally contain ive tables and enough space to move about easily. Set up a head table in the front of the room for recycled materials for building the rocket and for shared materials (like scissors, tape, etc. . . .). If you are using the one-hour version, place the bags with pre-assigned rocket parts plus the tape and any other shared materials on the head table, which is a neutral place. Place four other tables, one for each agency, perpendicular to the front table, and provide enough chairs to correspond to the number of participants that are expected. Put the table tents for each agency on their corresponding tables in advance. If you want to assure participants’ attention during the introduction, you can pass out the rule sheets and role cards ater the training has begun, when you are ready for them to focus their attention on the papers.
Materials Needed for Two-Hour Simulation
Figure 1 1
Sample Room Set-up
NASA
ESA
JAXA
RSA
Head table with recycled materials (or prearranged rocket parts) and tape, scissors and other items to be used jointly
MateRials needed foR two-HouR siMulation here are several ways for participants to build the rocket. For two-hour training sessions participants should work together to design their own rocket parts using recycled materials. You may choose the materials yourself (a sample list is provided below), but they should include at least a few empty water bottles, paper, a cereal or cookie box, plastic containers and a soda can. Also bring a pair of scissors, tape, markers and aluminum foil (it helps to make the rocket look more realistic). All of the materials should be placed on the head table.
11
12
ROCKET
list of Possible Recyclable Materials for building the Rocket 0
tin cans (soup, tuna, cat food or other)
0
empty plastic containers (butter tub, yogurt, etc.)
0
bottles (water, juice, soda)
0
toilet paper and paper towel rolls
0
lightweight cardboard boxes (cereal, fruit snack or other)
0
milk carton
0
newspapers
0
soda can
0
egg crate
0
other materials that you choose
list of Materials to be shared by all four agencies 0
pair of scissors
0
tape (scotch and also clear packaging tape)
0
paper
0
markers
Materials Needed for Two-Hour Simulation
0
aluminum foil
0
rubber bands
0
paper clips
0
stapler
0
string
additional Materials needed 0
Name stickers to identify agency ailiation and role assignment, for example: ESA, Program Director
0
Table tent for each table with agency name
0
Special badge for interpreter
0
Rule Sheets
0
Role Cards for participants (cut up and distributed to participants based on group size)
13
14
ROCKET
Figure 1 2
Drawing of a Sample Rocket:
European rocket nose made from recycled newspapers
American rocket body made from a water bottle
Russian engine made from a butter tub
Japanese ins made from cereal boxes
Materials Needed for One-Hour Simulation
MateRials needed foR one-HouR siMulation As mentioned earlier, if your time is limited to one hour, you can use preassembled rocket parts, separated into four plastic zip-lock bags. Model rockets can be purchased at crat or hobby shops. Label the bags as follows: 0
NASA: rocket body
0
ESA: rocket nose
0
RSA: rocket engine and Burger Hut decal. Note: The rocket engine may require some assembly. Follow the directions and preassemble the engine prior to placing it in the bag. Copy the Burger Hut decal below and include it in the bag.
0
JAXA: rocket ins
Figure 1 3
Burger Hut Decal
Cut out and place in Russian bag:
When using premade model rocket parts, it is especially important to bring in tape to hold the rocket together because there will be no time for the glue to dry. Also, by using tape you will be able to reuse the rocket for future trainings.
15
16
ROCKET
exPlanation of Rule sHeets Each agency will be given papers that state a set of rules upon which agency members must base their interactions. he rule sheets include information about language, decision making, trust and relationship building, pride, saving face and communication style, work ethic and time orientation, politics and economics and compromise and negotiation. Make enough photo copies so that all participants within each agency have their own rule sheet. If you are not sure how many people will be in each group, then make six copies of each rule sheet per group. Participants can keep the rule sheets throughout the simulation to refer to when needed.
exPlanation of Roles and Role caRds he role cards explain each participant’s title (Program Manager, Financial Oicer, Lead Engineer, etc.) and responsibilities during the simulation, thus helping participants to better understand their speciic objective and task. he Russian team will include an additional team member, an interpreter, who will also receive a role card. Pass out the role cards to participants when you distribute the rule sheets, either before the simulation begins or ater your introduction is inished. he role cards are meant to be lexible enough to allow for varying group size. he irst three roles (Program Manager, Financial Oicer and Lead Engineer) are the most vital to the success of the simulation; make sure that these roles, along with the Russian Translator role are illed irst. For groups between 13–25 participants assign the remaining role cards (Communi-
Simulation Day
cations Oicer, Administrator and Integrator, in that order). For groups between 26 and 30, additional participants can act as observers or can create their own role. For groups smaller than 13, role cards are optional. Either you can choose to forgo using role cards or you can ask participants to take on multiple roles. If forgoing the role cards make sure that participants assign their own roles and meet all of the objectives listed on the rule sheets. As facilitator, you can decide either to let participants pick their own role cards, or you can assign them. An alternative to using the role cards is to ask participants to choose/create their own roles within their agencies, based on the information contained on the rule sheets.
siMulation day
form Groups here are several ways you can assign participants to groups, and each facilitator will have his or her own preferred method for doing so. One approach is to assign participants to agencies as they enter the room; this allows you to control the size of the groups, the participants are not sitting with their friends, and you can place the table tents, rule sheets and role cards on the tables beforehand. Participants can then choose their role cards from those available on their table, or you can assign them depending on group size. Regardless of how you assign groups, give all participants name tags and instruct them to clearly write their agency and role on the tag, then place it on their clothing so that all other participants can easily recognize each other’s agency and role.
17
18
ROCKET
introduce the simulation Greet participants and welcome them to the training session. Next, provide them with a brief overview of the simulation. Include the following: 0
Let them know that the purpose of the simulation is to enhance important intercultural skills through the examination of the types of intercultural interactions that actually occur within the International Space Station (ISS) Program.
0
Also be sure to explain to them any additional objectives of the simulation, which will vary depending on the group make-up and the purpose of the training (see list of possible objectives). Explain to participants that the simulation they are about to participate in is based on twenty-two qualitative interviews done at NASA’s Johnson Space Center. Rocket simulates the real-life interactions and politics of the ISS Program and requires the participants and agencies to work together to assemble a model rocket that will be launched to the Space Station to inform the astronauts of a massive breakdown in communication from Earth. Let participants know that they are divided into four space agencies: NASA (United States), RSA (Russia), JAXA (Japan) and ESA (Europe).
0
Then ask the participants of each agency to read over the rules of interaction very carefully and learn them. Ask them to also study the agency-speciic tasks that they must accomplish. They must work together within their agencies and with the other space agencies to build the model rocket while utilizing the culture-speciic rules for interaction and keeping within the boundaries of their goals.
Simulation Day
Reemphasize that all four agencies have their own speciic agency tasks and cultural rules for interaction that must be followed. Remind participants that Rocket is a communication simulation and everyone should try to communicate within and among agencies as much as possible.
Read the scenario Reading the participants the scenario is a good way to “launch” the simulation; it provides them with a purpose and a reason for building the rocket. You may also want to create a simple PowerPoint presentation that states the scenario and can also be used to help participants keep track of time. Space debris has hit and knocked out the satellite communication system that is used to communicate with the International Space Station. It may be a few months before communication can be restored, so the international partners have decided to launch a mini rocket to the Space Station with a message inside that lets the Station astronauts know what has happened and to assure them that ISS agencies are working with all possible speed to restore communication. Your job is to work together within your own agency team and with the other three agencies to build a rocket to send a joint message to the astronauts aboard the Space Station.
19
20
ROCKET
deal with latecomers When participants arrive late to the training session, briely explain to them what is happening and quickly integrate them into an agency. Assign them a role card or have them take the role of objective observer.
allow for Questions Be sure to plan for a few minutes so that individuals may ask questions about the simulation, but avoid getting into philosophical or political discussions.
explain timing As the facilitator, your job is to help the participants complete their tasks within the time limit. One easy way to do this is to create a PowerPoint program that lists a countdown to launch. By doing so you can help session participants keep track of time so that they will know how much time remains to build the rocket and write the message. It works best if the countdown to launch is posted for the entire time spent building the rocket and writing the message. his includes time for individual group discussion and assembly of the assigned rocket part as well as time for the agencies to work together to build the rocket and write the message to the astronauts. Groups vary in the length of time they need to irst meet with each other to develop their plan. Some groups will jump right into working together (as was the case with real NASA engineers), but each group will be slightly diferent
Simulation Day
in how they approach building their portion of the rocket, as well as assembling the rocket and writing the message to the astronauts. Go over the rough time estimates at the start of the simulation (see simulation schedule). Make sure that participants don’t go over these time limits, but if they need less time to develop their plan or choose to jump into working with the other groups to build the rocket, let them do so. Having the countdown set for the entire time the participants have to build the rocket and write the joint message will allow for this lexibility. For a two-hour simulation the countdown to launch should be set at 65 minutes (for the onehour simulation, 40 minutes). Program the countdown for tenminute increments at irst and then for every ive minutes until the last ive minutes, when the countdown is set for one-minute increments. During the inal ten seconds of the simulation count down from ten, just like in a real NASA launch. When the time is up, the rocket “launches” and the simulation is over.
food for thought Keep in mind that how the simulation plays out might be a little diferent every time you run it. As you know, individual personalities interact during the simulation and afect the intercultural communication process. An analogy can be drawn between this and real-world intercultural communication, where cultural norms, individual personalities and government and corporate politics and economics afect the communication process.
21
22
ROCKET
ending the simulation At the conclusion of the simulation participants will have built a model rocket. Show the rocket to the group and comment in general on their engineering skills and their culturally appropriate communication exchanges. You may also want to read the message to the group and comment on that. hen ask participants to return to their tables for a debrieing session—or ask them to form a circle for discussion. his is usually a good opportunity for a short break, which gives participants time to pull themselves out of their roles so they can focus on the debrieing.
debRiefinG
suggested General simulation Process Questions Before you begin the actual debrieing, ask one member from each agency to read his or her rule sheet. If you used observers have them report their observations. Remember, the questions below are only suggestions. Each group creates its own unique environment and therefore may need diferent or new discussion starters. here are also too many questions below to cover adequately; choose those that are most relevant to the group’s experience during the simulation. 0
Now that you have heard the rules for the other agencies, in what ways do you better understand their behavior during the simulation?
0
How well did your agency function within the constraints of your rule sheet?
Debrieing
0
Do you feel like your agency worked together as a team? How so?
0
How did the rules of your agency’s culture afect how you approached the large group?
0
During the simulation, what diferences in intercultural communication styles were you able to recognize among the other agency teams?
0
If you found yourself slipping into stereotypes at any time during the simulation, can you give examples of those stereotypes?
0
What cultural misunderstandings or impasses occurred when you worked with the other agencies?
0
What types of compromises did your agency make in order to work together with the other agencies as a multinational team? How might these compromises help you in real-life situations?
0
What did you learn in general from this simulation that you can use when you work with diverse groups of people?
0
What types of strategies helped you be successful at working and communicating with team members from other agencies?
0
When you all worked together, how well did you concentrate your energy on working with your direct counterparts (Program Manager, Lead Engineer, Financial Oicer, etc. . .)?
0
To what extent did inancial pressures and objectives afect your ability to work together as an international team?
0
How do you feel about the Russian team having an interpreter when none of the rest of you had one? How did
23
24
ROCKET
the interpreter afect your interactions? And likewise, how did you, the Russian team, feel about having an interpreter follow you around all the time, even when you understood what was being said? 0
To what extent did you trust the other agencies? Do you feel that they understood your position and constraints?
0
What role did the more indirect communication style of the Japanese agency and the polite style of the American agency have in your ability to work together in the large team?
0
How did you approach the writing of the message to the astronauts?
0
What aspects of the simulation have helped you have a better understanding of intercultural group dynamics?
0
Were you able to diferentiate any behavior that might have been driven by personality characteristics rather than by cultural diferences during the simulation? If so, what personality-driven behaviors did you observe?
0
What will you remember most about having participated in this simulation and debrieing?
speciic debrieing Questions by specialization Suggested Possible Questions: International Businesspeople, Nongovernmental Organizations or Mission Groups 0
What were some of the difering perceptions and uses of time you found in this simulation?
Debrieing
0
How might difering concepts of time afect business transactions or relations?
0
What were some of the diferences between how each of the space agencies went about establishing trust? What can you learn from this about establishing trust with a client?
0
Which of the space agencies would you categorize as being direct? Which would you categorize as being indirect?
0
What should you keep in mind when you are doing business with someone who is from a more indirect culture than yours? With someone from a more direct culture?
0
How did the etiquette and protocol among agencies vary in this simulation, in your own experience internationally?
0
What were some of the political dynamics that occurred in this simulation?
0
How do they compare to political dynamics that you have experienced?
0
How do business hierarchies and power diferentials vary from country to country/region?
0
What role did economics play in this simulation?
0
How does international economics afect your relationships with clients?
0
What efect does economics have on the communication process?
25
26
ROCKET
Debrieing Questions: Teachers 0
What strategies can you use to be more efective with diverse students?
0
In what ways might your students’ norms for interaction be diferent from your own and from each other?
0
What was the role of language in this simulation? What language issues arise in your classroom? How do students perceive their native language? English?
0
What was the Americans’ attitude toward second language use in the simulation? In your experience?
0
What assumptions did the Americans make about the English language abilities of the European agency?
0
What were some of the diferences in how the agencies went about establishing trust? As a teacher, what are some things that you can do to help build trust with your students?
0
Do you feel that any cultural bias existed within the simulation? If so, which group’s cultural norms were dominant? What types of cultural biases might exist within your classrooms?
0
What are some things you can do to help improve communication with your non-native English-speaking students and their families?
Debrieing
Debrieing Questions: Student Service Professionals 0
What normative or cultural diferences in this simulation are similar to the diferences that exist between international students and host country students?
0
What role do you feel politics and economics play in developing relationships between students, with each other and with host country students?
0
When you were asked to use cultural norms diferent from your own to communicate, how did you feel?
0
What types of cultural adaptation and adjustment issues do international students face?
0
In what ways do international students need to adapt to a new set of cultural norms or rules?
Debrieing Questions: Students Studying Outside of Home Country 0
How might your cultural norms vary from those in the host country?
0
During the simulation what, if any, diiculty did you experience in using a diferent set of cultural norms/ rules?
0
What types of culturally based behavior might you be expected to adapt to?
27
28
ROCKET
0
In what way(s) did participation in this simulation expand your awareness of intercultural group dynamics?
0
What types of political or economic issues could arise when studying in a foreign country?
0
What efect could politics or economics have on your relationship with host country nationals? And how should you conduct yourself in the face of such powerful issues (1) when you are challenged about your own views based on your country of origin; and (2) when host nationals ask for your view of political and economic conditions in their countries?
Debrieing Questions: Health Care Practitioners 0
What diferent approaches and attitudes toward communication did you experience during the simulation? How might such attitudes play out in your practice?
0
What were some of the normative diferences among the four agencies?
0
What are some of the cultural diferences in your client’s heath care practices?
0
What efect does their traditional health care practices and view of health care have on your ability to provide services to them?
0
What efect do you think power and hierarchical diferences had among the agencies in the simulation? How do power diferences in your professional situation (among doctors, specialists, nurses and other care givers) contribute to patient/client care, to self-esteem?
Debrieing
0
What types of language diiculties did you encounter in the simulation? What about your own practice?
0
What is the role of trust in providing health care? In the simulation, what were some of the diferences in how the partner countries established trust?
0
What things can you do to help build trust with your clients?
0
What types of things can you do to be a culturally sensitive health care provider?
29
30
ROCKET
PRePaRation cHeck list ▫ Set room up with ive tables: one head table (for materials) and four other tables (one for each space agency). ▫ Make table tents for each of the agency tables that identify the agencies: NASA (United States), RSA (Russia), JAXA (Japan) and ESA (Europe). ▫ Make participant identiication tags with the agency name. If you pre-assign roles (Program Manager, etc.), write those roles on the tags also. If participants are choosing their own roles have a pen or marker available so that participants can write in their chosen roles. ▫ Place recycling materials, plus scotch tape, packing tape, scissors, paper, markers and aluminum foil on the head table. ▫ For a one-hour simulation: place several rolls of scotch tape and the four bags containing model rocket preassembled parts on the head table. Label the bags as follows: NASA—United States (bag contains the body of the rocket), RSA—Russia (bag contains the rocket engine and a Burger Hut label), JAXA—Japan (bag contains the ins) and ESA—Europe (bag contains the nose of the rocket). ▫ Copy enough rule sheets to provide each team member with his or her agency’s rules. If you are unsure of the exact number of participants, make six copies of each agency rule sheet. Depending on how you choose groups you can either distribute the rule sheets to the participants at the start of the simulation or the rule sheets can be preplaced
Preparation Check List
on the tables. If you are using observers then give the observers a set of all four of the rule sheets. ▫ Copy and cut up role cards and place them in envelopes to be distributed to participants at the start of the simulation. Depending on group size you can adjust the number of role cards as needed. ▫ If you decide to give debrieing discussion guide questions to participants, make enough copies for everyone. To allow for greater lexibility in your discussion, you might decide not to distribute the discussion guide questions. ▫ Prepare a simple optional PowerPoint presentation that states the objective of the simulation, gives a countdown of time remaining, as well as any other information you choose to include. Caution: don’t get carried away by giving participants too much information.
31
32
ROCKET
two-HouR scHedule 5 min.
Participants gather (greet participants and welcome them, introduce simulation and go over objectives).
10 min.
Divide participants into four groups or space agencies (if you have not already done so) and either ask them to choose their roles or assign roles to them, then read their rule sheets and role cards. Allow enough time for participants to study the rule sheets carefully and discuss how they plan to implement the rules during the simulation.
20 min.
Ask participants to work together within their agencies to form their plans, decide how to approach the other agencies with inancial or time issues, and begin to build their rocket part. Remind participants of the importance of adhering to their country’s cultural norms, communication styles and political and economic objectives. Ask the Lead Engineer to go to the head table and select the most appropriate recycling materials for the team’s speciic assignment.
*Note: Sometimes groups will jump right into working with the other agencies when irst designing their rocket part. This is actually how real NASA engineers approached this simulation when they participated in it. Such interagency discussion helps each team to design parts that will it together well. 45 min.
Work with the other space agencies to build the rocket. As participants interact, constantly check to make sure that all agency participants adhere to their rules and roles, including the cultural norms, as well as political and economic objectives. When the construction of
Two-Hour Schedule
the rocket is successfully completed and the messages written, all four teams will read the message and do any necessary editing to make the message succinct and clear. 40 min.
Debrief
33
34
ROCKET
one-HouR scHedule 15 min.
Introduce the simulation. To save time you may want to assign all participants to agencies and roles prior to the simulation. Then introduce the simulation, particularly the objectives, and ask participants to read their rule sheets and role cards individually. Allow enough time for participants to study the rule sheets carefully and discuss how they plan to implement the rules during the simulation.
10 min.
Before you distribute the rocket bags, remind the groups that it is very important that they adhere to their country’s cultural norms and communication styles as well as speciic political and economic objectives. Distribute the bags with the pre-made rocket parts to the appropriate space agencies.
15 min.
Work with the other space agencies to attach the parts to the rocket. Make sure that all the communication style rules and political/ economic objectives are being adhered to. When the construction of the rocket is successfully completed and the message is written, ask all four teams to read the message and do any necessary editing. The message should be succinct and clear.
20 min.
Condensed debrieing session
Rule Sheets and Role Cards
Rule sHeets and Role caRds Rule sHeet foR Rsa (Russia) Agency Speciic Task: he contribution to the rocket by the Russian Space Agency (RSA) is the engine. Design and make a rocket engine using the materials provided, checking in with the other agencies for it and design compatibility. hen attach the engine to the body of the rocket. RSA and the Russian economy are, unfortunately, in need of hard currency, and Burger Hut has ofered to pay you $20 million dollars for advertising on the side of the rocket. You must convince the other space agencies to allow the Burger Hut ad to be placed on the side of the rocket, and all of the proceeds will directly beneit the RSA and the Russian economy. When the rocket is completed, you will work together with the other agencies to write a message for the astronauts aboard the Space Station. his message needs to be written in both Russian and English. All four agencies must sign of on the message. Culture Speciic Information: Please base your interactions on the following: Language and Communication Style: English is the oicial language of the International Space Station (ISS) Program. Although neither the Japanese nor the European teams have interpreters, you do. All of your interactions with the other agencies are in Russian, and then translated by an interpreter. he interpreter is an outside contractor and therefore cannot make any decisions.
35
36
ROCKET
Decision Making: he Program Manager is expected to make all decisions. Other team members are fearful of experiencing negative consequences or even losing their jobs for making the wrong decision. Before making any decisions regarding the engine, you must get permission from the Program Manager at headquarters in Russia by phone. NASA usually gives you control over your decisions, but if the matter is of great importance, NASA has been known to use its power to get what it wants. Trust and Relationship Building: In order to feel comfortable working with your foreign counterparts and establishing trust you must irst get to know each other on a personal level. Trust is based on friendship and feelings, not on ability or prior interactions. Interpersonal relationships are more important than completion of a task. When other agencies question your decisions, you perceive their actions as a sign of mistrust. Work Ethic and Time Orientation: You are oten late to meetings and feel that tardiness is acceptable. You also value your private time and are quite protective of weekends and vacation. You work hard during work hours, but you strongly object to being interrupted during your free time. Politics and Economics: You are proud of your previous position of power in space exploration. he fall of the Soviet Union and therefore the loss of your status in space exploration have been a huge blow to your national pride. You are in need of hard currency and need to infuse cash into your economy and space program. You are excellent negotiators, and your unyielding spirit allows you to achieve your objectives.
Rule Sheets and Role Cards
Rule sHeet foR Jaxa (JaPan) Agency Speciic Task: he task of the Japanese Aeronautics Exploration Agency (JAXA) is to supply the rocket with ins. Design and make the ins using the materials provided, checking in with the other agencies for it and design compatibility. hen attach the ins to the body of the rocket. More than a iteen-minute delay in in attachment will cost JAXA $500,000. his is why you must make sure that the ins are attached to the rocket prior to the engine or the nose. You will have to ask NASA for money if you have to cover any late fees from your vendors. Ater attaching the ins, you will work with the other agencies to make sure that the in design is not compromised. Ater the rocket has been assembled, you will work together with the other agencies to write a message for the astronauts aboard the Space Station. All four agencies must sign of on the message. Culture Speciic Information: Please base your interactions on the following: Language and Communication Style: An indirect style of communication designed to save face is most comfortable for you. Sometimes your message is too subtle for others to catch, but your overall rapport with the other agencies is positive. English is the oicial language of the International Space Station (ISS) Program. Although your native language is Japanese, all communication between you and the other agencies takes place in English. Because English is not your native language, you oten have to ask others to repeat themselves or to speak more slowly so you can understand. You have tried using an interpreter, with
37
38
ROCKET
little success, so you oten hold side conversations in Japanese in order to make sure that everyone in your group correctly understands what is being said. You always try your best to communicate in English, and the other agencies respect you for your efort. Decision Making: Your agency uses a consensus-based system for making decisions; for this reason your team must make all decisions together. You oten return to ISS meetings from a sidebar discussion having made a decision that all of you agree on. Trust and Relationship Building: Trust is established by getting to know people on a personal level, and it is a key element of working together. he matter of trust between your agency and the others is not a problem for anyone. Work Ethic and Time Orientation: Similar to the work ethic of Americans, you feel that work comes irst, before family and personal time. Likewise, you are similar to Americans in your view of being on time for meetings and appointments. To be late is disrespectful. Politics and Economics: he Japanese Space Agency is very organized and enjoys planning ahead. Tensions arise between your team and others when you need to alter speciications or extend a deadline. You need to be lexible because of the additional economic burden you bear when you need to pay vendors more money for changes or for delays.
Rule Sheets and Role Cards
Rule sHeet foR esa (euRoPe) Agency Speciic Task: he contribution of the European Space Agency (ESA) to the rocket is the nose. You are to design the rocket nose using the materials provided, then consult with the program managers of the other teams to ensure size and it of the nose to the rest of the rocket. Work with the American, Russian and Japanese teams to attach the nose to the body of the rocket. he Americans have recently cut funding for the Rocket Retrieval System, which is a point of contention and hard feelings between your two agencies. Before you will agree to attach the nose to the rocket, you must negotiate with the Americans to reinstate $100 million dollars in funding for the retrieval system, which will be built at a later date. Ater the rocket has been constructed, you will work together with the other agencies to write a message for the astronauts aboard the Space Station. All four agencies must sign of on the message. Culture Speciic Information: Please base your interactions on the following: Language and Communication Style: English is the oicial language of the International Space Station (ISS) Program. Because the members of your team are from diferent countries with no common language, you use English to communicate, both within your agency and with the other agency teams. You feel that the use of English puts you at a disadvantage. Sometimes the group is speaking too quickly for you to follow, and you oten don’t understand the humor that is used, which embarrasses you. In general, you use a direct, to the point, style of
39
40
ROCKET
communication and are frustrated when conversations take a less direct path and detour from the point that is being made. You have little patience with indirect messages; half the time you can’t even igure out what the point of the message is. You are concerned that the Americans, in their eforts to be polite, mask problems that you think should be stated and dealt with. Decision Making: You are, by the multinational nature of your team, unique among the agencies. Many of the European countries within ESA have their own style of decision making. To achieve consensus, and to fully understand everything, you need to work harder than the other teams, oten resulting in side conversations. Trust and Relationship Building: Trust is established through a shared history of positive interactions, commitment and honesty; it is broken by unreliability or dishonesty. As Europeans, you are sometimes frustrated when working with Americans because they tend to change jobs and responsibilities oten. It is diicult for you to trust the Russians because you think they don’t keep their word and lack commitment. Work Ethic and Time Orientation: Weekends and vacation time are cherished. Employees are expected to take time of for vacation and spend time with their families. You will need to take a vacation at least once while the rocket is being constructed (leave the room for ive minutes midway through the simulation). You don’t understand the Americans and Japanese who seem not to mind being called in to work in the middle of the night, on Sundays and even during vacation.
Rule Sheets and Role Cards
Politics and Economics: You generally feel that the rocket is an American project with foreign participation, as opposed to a genuine partnership. his fact is obvious to you, especially regarding the Rocket Retrieval System, for which funding was cancelled.
41
42
ROCKET
Rule sHeet foR nasa (united states) Agency Speciic Task: he NASA contribution to the rocket is the body. You will irst design the body of the rocket using the materials provided. Although you must check with the other three teams for it and size, you expect them to adapt their structures to yours. hen you are to work with the Europeans to attach the nose, the Russians to attach the engine and the Japanese to attach the ins. You are the lead space agency on this project and are concerned with maintaining good relations with the other agencies, especially the Russians. You are also concerned about the bottom line and will do whatever it takes to meet your objectives and budget constraints. NASA has a budget of $100 million dollars for this. You expect the other three teams to come to you to check for proportion and it of their rocket parts. Ater the rocket is constructed you will work together with the other agencies to write a message for the astronauts aboard the Space Station. Although all four agencies must sign of on the message, you need to make it clear that you are the leader in this project. Culture Speciic Information: Please base your interactions on the following: Language and Communication Style: English is the oicial language of the International Space Station (ISS) Program. Many of your American colleagues feel that all of the space agencies should make more of an efort to learn to speak English. To appease the Russians, however, you allow them to use an interpreter, which you ind annoying. Having to speak slowly or repeat yourselves for the Japanese and Europeans is stressful
Rule Sheets and Role Cards
and frequently makes you frustrated. You use an indirect form of communication to allow your partners to save face, and you are polite—unless you don’t succeed in getting your way. In that case you will do whatever it takes to get what you want or need. When you are concerned about inancial matters, you oten use a very direct, to the point, form of communication. Decision Making: Individual team members are empowered to make decisions without fearing they will lose their jobs or sufer serious reprimands for unwise decisions. Trust and Relationship Building: Trust is built over time and is based on demonstrated ability and shared previous interactions. It can’t be hurried. Sometimes you are not at ease with establishing interpersonal relationships and prefer to focus on completing the assigned task. You see nothing wrong with asking for the rationale behind other agencies’ decisions; this is just part of doing a good job. Work Ethic and Time Orientation: As “can-do” Americans, you see it as your duty to be available whenever you are needed. When others are late to meetings and appointments, you see it as a sign of rudeness and expect people to be on time. Politics and Economics: You are the lead agency on this project and hold most of the power. Even so, you try hard to keep the partners happy, especially the Russians (for political reasons), by allowing them to save face and being careful not to ofend them. You oten feel frustrated working with the Russians because you feel limited in negotiating with them because of the pressure from NASA administration to keep the Russians happy.
43
44
ROCKET
Russian (Rsa) aGency Role caRds Roles are numbered and listed in order of importance. For the Russian group assign an Interpreter, Program Manager, Financial Oicer and Lead Engineer irst. Depending on group size, add a Communications Oicer, an Administrator and an Integrator. 1 Interpreter: You are an outside contractor that was hired to act as an interpreter. Your job is to help the Russians to communicate with the other space agencies. You are to translate what others are saying and are not empowered to make any decisions or initiate communication.
2 Program Manager/ Headquarters: You alone are responsible for making all of Russia’s decisions. You are physically located at Russian headquarters, away from the rest of your group; therefore you should sit on the other side of the room, away from the group, or leave the room and have them contact you by cell phone when decisions need to be made.
3 Financial Oicer: Your task is to make sure that the Burger Hut advertisement is placed on the side of the rocket in order to help infuse $20 million into the Russian space program.
Rule Sheets and Role Cards
4 Lead Engineer: Your job is to help your agency design the engine of the rocket. If you are building your rocket from recycled materials, then your job is to choose the items that will best it your purpose. You will help, in coordination with the other three teams, to attach them to the other rocket parts. (If you are doing the one-hour simulation, the engine will be preassembled.)
5 Communications Oicer: Your job is to call and communicate with the Program Manager who is located in Russia whenever a decision needs to be made.
6 Administrator: Your job is to help write the inal message. You must make sure that it is written in both Russian and English and that all four agencies sign of on the message.
7 Integrator: Before the engine can be attached and integrated with the other rocket components you must establish trust with the other agencies.
45
46
ROCKET
JaPanese (Jaxa) aGency Role caRds Roles are numbered and listed in order of importance. For the Japanese group assign a Program Manager, Financial Oicer and Lead Engineer irst. Depending on group size, add a Communications Oicer, an Administrator and an Integrator.
1 Program Manager: Your job is to make sure that all Japanese agency members reach a consensus on all decisions.
2 Financial Oicer: Your task is to make sure that the Japanese stay within budget and that extra costs aren’t added because of construction delays. Delays cost $500,000. If in attachment is delayed, you must ask NASA for money to help cover the late fees from your vendors.
3 Lead Engineer: Your job is to help your agency design the ins of the rocket. If you are building your rocket from recycled materials then your job is to choose the items that will best it your purpose. You will help, in coordination with the other three teams, to attach the ins to the other rocket parts. (If you are doing the one-hour simulation, the ins will already be preassembled.)
Rule Sheets and Role Cards
4 Communications Oicer: Your job is to make sure that your team members are able to understand and to be understood by the other agencies. You may have to ask others to speak more slowly or repeat themselves. You can request side bar conversations with other Japanese team members whenever you feel it necessary to make sure that everyone understands.
5 Administrator: You are concerned with relations with the other space agencies and the political efects. You use an indirect form of communication designed to “save face.” Yes doesn’t always mean yes. It is also your responsibility to make sure that all four agencies sign of on the message.
6 Integrator: You are to help make sure that the ins are the irst item to be attached to the body of the rocket and are concerned with how well the ins it together with the other country’s components. After your ins have been attached, you must work with the other agencies to make sure that your ins are not compromised.
47
48
ROCKET
euRoPean (esa) aGency Role caRds Roles are numbered and listed in order of importance. For the European group assign a Program Manager, Financial Oicer and Lead Engineer irst. Depending on group size, add a Communications Oicer, an Administrator and an Integrator. 1 Program Manager: Vacation time and time spent with families is an important European value. Because you value your time of, it is your job to make sure that your entire agency goes on vacation and leaves the room at least once for about ive minutes during the building of the rocket.
2 Financial Oicer: You are to convince the Americans to reinstate $100 million in funding for the Rocket Retrieval System (to be built at a later date) before you will attach the nose. Although you would prefer that all of the funding be reinstated, you are willing to negotiate.
3 Lead Engineer: Your job is to help your agency design the nose of the rocket. If you are building your rocket from recycled materials, then choose the items that will best it your purpose. You will help, in coordination with the other three teams, attach the nose to the other rocket parts. (If you are doing the onehour simulation, the nose will already be assembled.)
Rule Sheets and Role Cards
4 Communications Oicer: Because you all speak diferent languages, your team must use English to communicate with each other. You must make sure that everyone understands each other, as well as what the other agencies are saying.
5 Administrator: Your job is to make sure that all of the countries who are working together as part of the European agency are in agreement with each other. Although you are one agency, because you represent diferent countries, you may have diferent ideas. It is also your responsibility to make sure that all four agencies sign of on the message.
6 Integrator: For safety reasons, before you will allow the nose to be attached to the rocket body, you must make sure that money for the Rocket Retrieval System has been reinstated
49
50
ROCKET
aMeRican (nasa) aGency Role caRds Roles are numbered and listed in order of importance. For the American group assign a Program Manager, Financial Oicer and Lead Engineer irst. Depending on group size, add a Communications Oicer, an Administrator and an Integrator.
1 Program Manager: You are concerned with relations with other space agencies and the political efects of actions taken. You are to make sure that the partner agencies, especially the Russians, are kept happy.
2 Financial Oicer: You are concerned with the bottom line and will do whatever it takes to make sure that the rocket gets built and budget constraints are met. You have a total budget of $100 million for this project.
3 Lead Engineer: Your job is to help your agency design the body of the rocket. If you are building your rocket from recycled materials, then your job is to choose the items that will best it your purpose. You will also help the other three teams attach their components to the rocket body and are the primary person responsible for the overall rocket construction. (If you are doing the one-hour simulation, the rocket will use pre-assembled parts.)
Rule Sheets and Role Cards
4 Communications Oicer: You are polite and use an indirect form of communication in order to help your partners save face. That is unless you aren’t getting your way! In that case you utilize a more direct, to the point, form of communication and push hard to get what you want and need.
5 Administrator: You are to make sure that the rocket is built in a timely manner and stays on schedule. It is your responsibility to make sure that the rocket is built and the message is written in the time allotted for the simulation—and that all four teams sign of on the message.
6 Integrator: You are concerned with how well the rocket parts it together with the other country’s components and you must ensure that each rocket part is high quality and safe to ly. It is your responsibility to make sure that the inal rocket is structurally sound and light ready.
51
Pa R t t w o
supplemental Reading— Misunderstandings
Instructions for Use
instRuctions foR use his training simulation is based on 22 qualitative interviews with astronauts, trainers, engineers, light directors and administrators from the United States, Russia, Japan and Europe. he purpose of the second half of this simulation guide is to provide supplemental information that sheds additional insight into the intercultural communication process that takes place within the International Space Station Program. Trainers can choose to (1) provide participants with the reading prior to facilitating the training session; or (2) hand it out to interested participants at the conclusion of the training. Trainers will ind the supplemental reading very helpful in facilitating the simulation and will want to read the following pages prior to running the simulation.
55
56
ROCKET
MisundeRstandinGs in tHe inteRnational sPace station PRoGRaM Any time that people from diferent ethnic and cultural backgrounds work together as a multinational team, a variety of cultural misunderstandings can—and usually do—occur. In the case of the International Space Station (ISS) Program, a number of frustrations and tensions commonly appear during the process of working together. he 22 American, Russian, Japanese and European participants who were interviewed about the intercultural communication they observed within the ISS Program were quick to pick up on factors other than cultural diferences that detract from the efectiveness of the work environment. Tensions or diiculties within the team are oten due to individual personality traits rather than cultural mindsets. Many team members also felt that some disagreements are caused by the diferences in corporate cultures rather than in ethnic cultures. Closely aligned with corporate culture is the notion of unequal power relationships, which can distort communication and can lead to frustration and dysfunctional working relationships. Unequal power relationships are the result of economic, political and national inequalities that exist within the ISS Program. Unequal power relationships can manifest themselves in a variety of ways, from forcing individuals to act against their better judgment to covert decision-making tactics. On a positive note, participants agreed that over time and through the process of working together and getting to know one another better, the impact of cultural diferences on the working relationship diminishes.
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
Of the cultural factors that do play an important role in the operation of the ISS program, participants identiied the following: language use, decision making, trust and relationship building, pride, saving face and communication style, work ethic and time orientation, politics and economics and compromise and negotiation.
language English is the oicial language in the International Space Station (ISS) Program. Whether the communication originates from Japan or Europe, English is required for all communication. All of the oicial agreements state that the language of use is English, except when the Russians are involved, in which case an interpreter is usually called in to help. Both Russian and English are used in written communication between the Russians and Americans, whereas only English is used within the European and Japanese agencies. While the Americans generally assume that the international partners have no serious diiculties with English as the lingua franca, several of the Americans and many of the international partners feel otherwise, stating that they feel the international partners are in fact at a disadvantage, especially when negotiating is involved. To help clarify misunderstandings caused by language diferences, a written document oten accompanies oral communication. In the following quote, one American participant acknowledges that linguistic diferences do in fact put a Japanese, Russian or European partner at a disadvantage. his participant also notes how NASA tries to accommodate for language problems by providing the partners with a written document:
57
58
ROCKET
Oh, sure. Sure. I think aside from maybe a handful, English is probably their second language. I think it’s deinitely somewhat of a handicap. I think we see that and deal with that by making sure everything that we talk about we have on paper, so that they can read while we talk. I can usually tell when we’re speaking English too fast and when they’ve ceased understanding. And, you know, until you’re luent in English, it’s really still your second language, you’re still translating it back to yourself and how you hear it. But if they have an ability to read what the person’s saying, I think we’re able to bridge that communication gap.
Because nonverbal communication, like body language, gestures and voice inlection difer from culture to culture, participants oten misread or incorrectly interpret these tacit messages. his problem is noted by a number of the interviewees from more than one culture. Although, on a rational level, most of the participants are aware that gestures and body language difer among cultures, only a few admitted that in practice these diferences are oten misread and are the cause of communication problems. he majority of interactions between Americans and Russians occurs with the use of an interpreter. Although interpreters enable communication, they are oten the cause of additional frustrations. Oten the interpretation process is time consuming and tedious, which can wear on both parties’ patience. Also, despite the use of an interpreter, miscommunication can still occur. Oten the interpreters do not correctly or completely translate what has been said; sometimes they don’t understand expressions or idioms or vocabulary; and occasionally they add their own thoughts and feelings to the interaction. When the interaction between parties gets tense or argumentative, the
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
interpreter may try to soten the impact of the actual communication for the other party by distorting the message. Improper interpretations—or poor word choice—have lead to a number of cultural misunderstandings. he quote below by one of the American agency members explains just how tedious and wearing the translation process can be. One gets the sense that this participant inds it hard to be patient with the process, especially when emotional issues are involved, and that he does not necessarily feel that using an interpreter is a good thing. It appears that he feels the Russians use interpreters for reasons of comfort rather than out of necessity. he idea that Russians don’t really need to use interpreters came up during several of the American interviews. Generally, they [the translations] are extremely tedious because none of the Americans speak more than a smattering of Russian. And while some of the Russians have fairly good English, they prefer to depend on the interpreters to make sure they get it right. And so, everything has to be interpreted. And it’s just, it’s annoying to sit there waiting for every exchange to be interpreted. And generally, we’re trying to deal with some very contentious issues involving some emotional energy. And to have to go through this very slow process to get to what you want to say to try to resolve a dispute or a diference of opinion is very tedious.
Unlike the Russians, who use interpreters to communicate, the Japanese must communicate entirely in English. A few years ago, the Japanese tried to use an interpreter during a high-level negotiation, but the interpreter was unable to translate technical terms correctly, which added to the miscommunication instead
59
60
ROCKET
of helping to smooth it out. Although the Japanese do not think that an interpreter is helpful, they feel that they are at a linguistic disadvantage during negotiations. Based on what is stated in the following quote by a Japanese participant, it is evident that many communication problems exist between the Americans and the Japanese: Negotiations are very tough. Right now we talk face to face it is okay, but when we discussing, then we have to [ask] people [to repeat or slow down]. It’s very hard for us. Also we cannot express [ourselves] just because our [words] and expressions is not so much, so we cannot [say] what we want or what our[country wants]. When we discuss the general, is okay. [When] we work with professional interpreters . . . when we [talk about] professional . . . issues, they cannot interpret because they don’t know the [technical words] or the current issue. Even the highest interpreter from Japan cannot . . . But anyway we tried the good interpreters but it didn’t work.
To make sure that everyone correctly understands what is being said, the Japanese delegation oten holds separate conversations in Japanese. he Americans, as well as other partners, seem to be sympathetic to these Japanese side discussions, even though they oten slow down communication. he Japanese also frequently use “sidebar” conversations as a method of building consensus. he next excerpt articulates how the Japanese use sidebar conversations to help clarify the communication that is taking place: Sometimes when the Japanese do a little talking, they gain a clearer understanding of what everyone is talking about
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
so they can then respond if it’s just a technical question like how something works. That’s not so much of a problem. Plus, there won’t necessarily have to be an immediate caucus—you know, stop everything while they go have a little sidebar discussion. They often convene by themselves after the meeting is inished.
In general, although communication with the Japanese can at times be trying for some of the participants, there is a good feeling about communicating with each other. Perhaps this is because linguistic diiculties notwithstanding, the Japanese try their very best to communicate in English. he Englishspeaking partners recognize the diiculty the Japanese face and respect them for their efort. he following quote from a Japanese participant notes that although the American and Japanese cultures are very diferent, both sides try hard to understand each other. When a misunderstanding occurs, they both continue to work at resolving the issue, each time increasing their understanding of each other. So, unfortunately, we Japanese doesn’t understand the culture, but when we come close to the trouble, we discuss how to understand that custom. We understand that there is a gap there . . . . Then we try again to discuss and explain that Japanese custom. Then after the problem [is solved,] then we again, as far as both sides, apologize. Then discuss again. . . . I don’t know exactly, but Americans and Japanese are very diferent from each other, but try to understand . . . like the Japanese food, Japanese customs hard to understand.
61
62
ROCKET
All communication between the Europeans and the Americans takes place in English as well. his is, of course, because the European Space Agency (ESA) itself consists of people from a variety of nations and language groups. herefore, the only common language among ESA members is oten English. For this reason an ESA employee from Spain usually communicates in English with his ESA colleague from Germany. he following quote illustrates communication among Europeans within ESA: One of my oice mates for the last three years was French. And there was another French guy in the oice next door. They would usually talk in French to each other, but the German guy in the next oice would only talk in English to them. He wouldn’t talk in French. I don’t know if he didn’t know French or if the French guys didn’t know German, but generally if they are of the same nationality they tend to speak the same language. But if they are diferent, then they speak English.
It is perhaps because members of ESA speak in English with each other that most of the Americans feel justiied in conducting all business in English and do not feel that language is a barrier to communication, or that ESA members are at a disadvantage because of language diferences. In contrast, all of the European participants feel that, in some respects, they are hampered by their language diferences, whether it is because the group is speaking too quickly for them to follow or because they do not understand some of the humor that is used. In general, they also feel that the Americans are oten unaware that the Europeans may be feeling let out of the group. he following European individual talks about how
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
Europeans feel at a disadvantage, especially when the native English speaker is speaking too quickly. Oh, I think so, yes. Taking into account that is not our native language, unless you are English speaking, yeah, it places a disadvantage. And you have several times you don’t understand what they’re saying or—because they’re just talking very fast. I mean you may have noticed that I usually look at your mouth when you talk . . . to igure out or to get more information.
In summary, all of the non-English speaking partners feel that the use of English occasionally puts them at a disadvantage; however, the majority of Americans fail to recognize this inequality.
decision Making Perhaps the majority of frustrations and misunderstandings that occur in the International Space Station Program are due to cultural and structural diferences in how the partners make decisions together as a multicultural team. Because each of the partners has a diferent process for making decisions, it is important for each of the partners to understand the other’s procedure. One thing that was clear from the interviews was that, in general, Americans have more power to make decisions than the other partners do. It was felt that American managers were empowered to make decisions without fearing they might lose their job or be seriously reprimanded if they were to make a poor decision. In contrast Russians were fearful of experiencing
63
64
ROCKET
negative consequences for making poor decisions and therefore would rely solely on those in charge, those who were accountable to make any necessary decisions regarding their speciic area of expertise. In contrast, the Japanese have a more consensus-based system for making decisions. Oten the Japanese will have separate talks and then come back to the negotiating table at a later date having made a decision that is agreeable to all levels of the organization. In the excerpt below, this Japanese participant talks about the Japanese consensus-based decision making process. his process can be time consuming, and therefore quick decisions are rarely made. When NASA needs to decide and the meeting is here in the States the delegation has to take [all the information to] Japan . . . we do it diferent than NASA. At the end inally we have to explain the issues to the supervising organizations [in Japan] and need to get the [decision]. . . . It depends on the size or the issue, but still, even for me, I cannot decide here, I have to ask the headquarters, is the way we do.
he following paragraph states one American participant’s perception of the diferences in how partners go about decision making. his person feels that while the Japanese partners are likely to bring an issue to their management, discuss it and then return, having made a collective decision, the Russians simply bring the issue to their management and someone from above makes the decision: You know, they have diferent ways of communicating it. If, for instance, we’re dealing with, you know, say the Japa-
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
nese. The Japanese will usually communicate that they’ll have to do more research before they can give you an answer on something. The Russians will typically [say] that they have to verify [all decisions] with their management, you know. And you get the — you get the impression more so from the Japanese that they’re going to go back to their counterpart, say, including their upper management, and have a discussion about—about this point. You get the impression from the Russians that the workinglevel troops are absolutely not in power to make decisions of this type. And they’d get hammered if they did. And so they deinitely take it up their management chain and their managers make that decision independently. So, you get that kind of feel from working with the diferent kinds of partners.
his Russian participant agrees with the American observations about the diferences between American and Russian decision making. he participant states that in Russia his superior is always expected to make decisions and that a speciic structure for making decisions exists where one individual is responsible for a particular area of expertise: No, the process is always some boss is supposed to make decisions. In Russia, we still have some structure organization . . . . Always a speciic person can make decisions for his [area of expertise]. In Russia, because it is very structural, I think I couldn’t answer the person because I don’t know exactly, how it’s working and maybe I don’t know exactly what you expect from me because probably I don’t understand.
65
66
ROCKET
An additional comment made by a Russian respondent conirms the American observation that American engineers have more freedom to make decisions because they don’t have the same fear of losing their job as the Russian engineers do. his respondent explains that jobs are harder to come by in Russia and therefore people are less willing to take responsibility for making decisions: Yes, I think the American engineers feel more freedom from their bosses, from their management. They feel less pressure on them because they know if they don’t do something what boss expects from them, even if they are ired or something like that, they will ind other job that will do whatever they want. They can, you know, lose some money, but it’s not so big diference. In Russia probably different because it’s hard to ind good job.
he interviews with ESA members yielded contrasting data. While some Europeans felt that Europe was more consensus-oriented than the United States, others felt that Europe was more individualistic. Perhaps this contrast in opinions can be explained by the fact that ESA includes people from a variety of countries, all having their own style of making decisions. While a Scandinavian, who is from a culture that is group oriented, may feel that Europe is more consensus based, a French or Spanish participant may perceive Europe as being more individualistic. he following quote is from one European who feels that ESA is much more group oriented in their decision making than the Americans, stating that he feels the boss usually makes the decision in the U.S. more so than in Europe:
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
Europe is much more group oriented on decision making. Sit together and talk and try to ind a consensus. It’s diferent down here also but to a lesser extent. I mean I have the feeling that here the boss makes the decision.
In contrast, the following ESA member experiences more teamwork at NASA than in ESA. As an example, he cites how even the way the oices at NASA are organized relect the collective nature of decision making and teamwork. In ESA people have individual oices and work on individual projects, but at NASA they share oices and work together collaboratively: If you’re going to ESA, you will see individual oices for people who are working there. . . . Okay? So, probably this tells you something about teamwork. Here, the oices are shared by four people, ive, maybe more, but never—I mean, in very few cases is just one. Whereas, in Europe, it’s not like that. Each person has his own oice. And this tells you a little bit about the mentality. Well, that was one of the things that caught my attention when I came here. Oh, this is diferent. Looks like people sharing oices, like more teamwork and more doing common things. There is more participation in the meetings from American people.
trust and Relationship building To Americans, trust is not just something that occurs automatically but must be built over time and is based on demonstrated ability and on a shared history of interactions. his view is reiterated by a number of the American participants.
67
68
ROCKET
he following American participant feels that building trust is oten a slow process, one that requires time, commitment and energy. How do you develop that trust? You build a history of demonstrated ability that reinforces but does not violate that trust. And that is a slow and painful process. But is it worth your while to spend that much time? Well, I don’t know, but I think that’s an even more appropriate question.
Interestingly, a number of the interviewees expressed the idea that people at the working-crew level tend to trust each other, but that a higher degree of trust needs to be established among the partners at the higher levels of the administration. In the following excerpt, this American NASA administrator explains that it is more diicult to build trust at higher management levels than it is on the working-crew level because of the limited frequency of interactions among the partners: You know, if you have two electricians, they’re probably talking two and three times a week, or maybe much more often. It’s easier to establish a relationship, but at upper management level, you only see each other every two or three months for a meeting. I think it’s a little bit harder to build trust among managers, but it’s important.
In contrast to how Americans establish relationships, Russians believe that it is important to get to know each other irst before working together. Russians believe that trust can be established by getting to know each other on a more personal level. Trust is something that is mostly based on friendship and feelings—almost on intuition, rather than on ability or history
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
of interactions. In response to the question, “Do I hear you saying that Russians base trust on feelings?” A Russian respondent replied, Yes. Because, you know, sometimes we don’t like every person. The person we like, we may make some relationship, some good relationship. Other person we don’t like, in my opinion with Russians, we must make some connection on the feeling level to work together, to be very good to each other and without problem.
Many of the Russian interviewees felt that Americans oten don’t take the time to get to know each other and establish trust. Several of the participants mentioned that a lot of the distrust that exists between Americans and Russians is based on political, rather than on interpersonal tensions. An example of the type of political tensions that lead to mistrust is stated in the following. I think that especially right now there is a lot of distrust between the Americans and Russians. Just because the Russians used the Soyuz for additional purposes doesn’t mean that they didn’t do everything they were supposed to do. The Americans kind of did a lot of back-stabbing. So, I think that some tensions are unavoidable.
An additional source of mistrust between the Russians and the Americans occurs when the rationale behind decisions is questioned. When the Americans question their Russian coworkers about decisions they have made, the Russians perceive such queries as a sign of mistrust. Americans, on the other hand, assume that mutual questions and requests for explana-
69
70
ROCKET
tions are simply a part of the process of doing a good job. his particular cultural diference, trust, has caused many misunderstandings and resentments between American and Russian partners. he fact that Russians may not always feel free to speak openly or are reticent about trusting their American counterparts was mentioned by both American and Russian participants; it is most likely rooted in a mentality that is let over from the Soviet era. In the following quote, this Russian respondent talks about how he cannot trust Americans completely because he is fearful of losing his job, or other serious repercussions. his fear sometimes hinders communication and interferes with establishing trust with his American counterparts. In fact the following comment was made on a park bench outside the NASA complex because the respondent wanted to assure conidentiality. It’s a concern of a relationship like trust, like, you know, some discussion, some type of intercommunication which is related to our work. A lot of people working now in Russia came to new Russia from the former Soviet Union, and they have still the same mentality. They’re afraid of losing their jobs, then not having enough money to support their families. It’s, you know, they don’t feel safe. . ..
he American interviewees feel that the key to establishing trust with the Japanese is to form a good working relationship with them, to get to know them on a personal level, similar to the way that one would go about forming trust with a Russian counterpart. In the case of the Japanese, however, there do not appear to be any particular problems involving trust. Both parties seem to trust each other equally and feel that the other side
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
is sincere. In this next passage, the American respondent talks about how she established trust with her Japanese counterpart: I think it’s just vital to develop a strong relationship together, learning more about the person than just discussing technical stuf. If you feel that people are sincere and sense that they truly enjoy—or at least have a vested interest in—what they’re doing, then I think they will in turn trust you. Their responses are going to be, you know, heartfelt instead of just a pass-the-buck kind of thing. I think the more you know the person, the . . . the deeper the relationship . . .
When discussing the issue of trust, the following European participant felt that Americans are polite and behave as they do in order to have good feelings and, therefore, are able to form bonds of trust. his is in contrast with the more direct European communication styles, in which people tend to be more direct and honest with each other. I think there are diferences. I think people here behave in a very supportive way. In terms of when you go with a solution or when you come up with something that you feel must be done, they are very supportive. And even though, from the bottom of their hearts they disagree, they will go around it nicely. I think they protect people in that respect. Whereas Europeans will tell you very clearly that you must be joking.
During the European interviews some participants mentioned that they do not trust the Russians because of their lack of commitment. One of these participants described how he has
71
72
ROCKET
had problems establishing trust with his Russian counterparts because he does not feel that the Russians are always reliable and oten don’t keep their word. Perhaps from this we can infer that for Europeans, part of establishing trust is knowing that the other person is true to his or her word and is committed to it. I had some problems with the Russians because I have a feeling that commitment is less important than in Europe. When they say that they’ll do something, just remember that often they don’t feel as committed as you do in Europe, so don’t always expect results because sometimes they don’t materialize. And they don’t even feel bad about letting us down. So it’s diicult.
In summary, one may conclude that while Americans establish trust based on repeated interactions over time or on a perceived skill or expertise, Russians and the Japanese establish trust based on interpersonal relationships. For both of these cultural groups, getting to know someone on a personal basis is an important element in the establishment of trust. For Europeans trust is established through commitment and, similar to Americans, through a shared history of interactions. In order for all sides to avoid breaking one another’s trust, the international partners need to be sensitive to these cultural diferences and try their best to accommodate them.
Pride Although there seems to be a general sense of mutual respect for one another, oten the issue of pride hinders the development of a smooth working relationship, even more so than lack
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
of trust. Problematic interpersonal relationships or a lack of respect for a speciic co-worker oten coexist with pride. Almost all of the American participants in the study felt that Russian pride (and sometimes American pride, too) oten interfere with the working relationship. he Americans said they made an efort to sympathize with the Russians, trying to imagine how hard it would be to fall from being number one in space exploration to the level of secondary partnership. he following excerpt discusses the blow to Russian pride due to the fall of the Soviet Union. You could probably do a whole study on Russian psychology in the latter decade of the twentieth century. Clearly they have been dealt a devastating blow to their pride. Russians have been told all their lives that they are a superpower. And right now, their economy is in the dumpster. And quite frankly, they are no longer the principal player in the space program. They’re a major player, certainly, but they are not the principal player. And I think it really hurts their sense of individual and national pride to be told that they’re not in charge. This point is driven home on an almost daily basis in editorials in the Moscow newspapers.
In the following quote this Russian participant explains how injured pride oten results in bad feelings that interfere with the communication process. It’s like, okay, when we were powerful, not powerful-powerful but pretty powerful, when we had some system and we understood that we were respected from anybody else and now we don’t have anything. Well, you have something but you see that it’s not so big like was before. It’s like
73
74
ROCKET
some extra feeling, extra bad feeling and when you have that feeling it’s involved in your communication with other people.
Understanding how this wound to Russian pride interferes with the communication process can be an important part of understanding the American-Russian intercultural communication process.
saving face and communication styles Closely related to the issue of pride is that of saving face. Saving face refers to the process of protecting oneself or someone else in order to avoid public embarrassment, an indirect approach to sending a message that gives a subtle hint that there may be a problem without causing embarrassment to the receiver. While saving face might be a polite form of giving feedback or disagreeing, the message is oten too understated to be understood, especially by those from cultures that utilize direct forms of communication. Saving face is a practice commonly employed in Asian cultures, but it can also be used by Americans, Russians or Europeans. he following American statement demonstrates how Russians try to save face by not admitting that they are short of resources: Now, to be fair, I suspect that we do not understand all of the constraints that drive them [the Russians], and many times we want to do something because it’s the right thing to do. But if a project or task requires a lot of resources, I suspect they don’t have the resources sometimes to
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
accomplish the task in the way that we think it ought to be done. But at the same time, they don’t want to admit that they don’t have the necessary resources. So they just take the face-saving tack that, well, we’re the experts; we know how to do this; we’ve been doing it this way for a long time. And we know it.
he interviews suggest that the Americans have tried two diferent approaches to communicating with the Russians. he irst approach is to keep them happy at all costs. he second approach is to get what NASA wants. In the irst approach NASA tries very hard to keep the partners happy for political reasons by not rocking the boat, by giving into demands and by making an efort not to ofend or upset anyone. his approach ties into the underlying political goal of strengthening international relations and furthering good will among the partner nations. he object of the irst approach is to save face, to not embarrass or ofend the partner in any way. In the second approach NASA does whatever it takes to get what it wants or needs. In this latter approach, NASA is not concerned with saving face or maintaining good relations; instead, its driving force is the bottom line, which serves as the rationale for getting (or taking) what it wants. When working with the Japanese, an indirect style of communication designed to save face is usually the best approach. Sometimes the Japanese feel that Americans are too straightforward or too direct, especially with negative responses; nevertheless, they understand this diference in communication style. he Japanese also realize that their message is sometimes lost when their statement of disagreement is too subtle for Americans to understand. Both sides seem to be aware of this communication style diference and try to be sensitive to each
75
76
ROCKET
other. In the early days of working together, a greater number of misunderstandings occurred because of this diference in communication style. Today, perhaps because neither side wants to ofend the other, the concept of saving face by using an indirect style of communication is understood by all and oten used. Most of the Europeans feel that their American counterparts are very polite, almost too polite. In fact the Americans are oten so polite that the Europeans are unable to detect when there is a problem, if something is wrong or if the Americans are being honest. I’m not very sure, but I think it has to do with the mentality of diferent cultures. I mean, I ind Americans friendly and very polite, very kind. I think in Europe, many people are less polite, less kind on average. And I guess you can see how these two mentalities often clash in the work environment.
Some Europeans are also frustrated when conversations detour from the point that is being made. While American communication tends to be much more direct and to the point than that of the Japanese, it is less direct than most European styles. In the subsequent passage, a European respondent relates his frustration with American conversations that oten diverge from the initial intention: Yeah. Yes. And many times, the conversation wanders from the main point. This is something that I’m having a lot of diiculty with, because my way of thinking is diferent. I’m more—I don’t know how to say this properly—but I like a more rational approach. For example, we’re talking about one subject and this is the subject. When people detour
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
on to other subjects, then I get lost. So, I can no longer participate in this process. . .. Yes. I mean, it’s something that frustrates me.
work ethic and time orientation Diferences in how the cultures view work responsibilities and time of sometimes result in cultural misunderstanding or tension. In the American-dominated NASA culture, the employees believe it is their duty to be available twenty-four hours a day if needed. Most don’t mind being called at home in the middle of the night or working during a holiday in the case of an emergency. In contrast, Russians will not work during holidays and will not pick up the phone at home. his diference in attitude toward work is the cause of frustration and resentment, especially during emergency situations in which the Russians need to be contacted. he following quote is from an American participant who talks about this diference in attitudes toward free time versus working hours. His frustration comes through as he talks. Well, I think one of the Russian customs is that they are very jealous of their private time. I mean, they work, they work hard when they’re at work, but when it comes to the weekend or a holiday, they expect to go home and not be bothered. In our culture, you know, we’re kind of on 24/7, whatever it takes. Don’t hesitate to call me at home at 2:00 a.m. if you’ve got a problem. So, we get really frustrated when we can’t reach the Russians when we need to and it’s a weekend or a holiday or even after hours. So, their
77
78
ROCKET
approach to their time of has been a major problem for us. And, you know, we kind of have accepted the fact that, okay, we may have to work during our holidays. But when May Day or Russian Independence Day rolls around, there is no way we can schedule anything major involving the Russian operation on a holiday like that. They will never show up.
he European attitude toward free time is similar to that of the Russians’. Europeans cherish vacation time and view it as an important part of their lives. Employees are expected to take time of for vacation and to spend time with their families. Europeans view Americans as being over-worked and stressed all the time. hey feel that Americans don’t take enough vacation time and don’t know how to relax. he following except is from a European interview and discusses this cultural diference: Supericially, I have the feeling that [Americans] need to give the impression that they work a lot. . . . In Europe, vacation is just as important as work and I mean it’s very accepted. That’s deinitely a big diference.
Work ethic and time orientation are usually closely related. For Russians, Spaniards and Southern Europeans, time is more lexible than it is for Western Europeans, the Japanese or Americans. Now and then, this diference in time orientation causes problems with working relationships, as in the following comment: The way we think here is like, let’s put it like this, when the person gets to a meeting or appointment ive minutes
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
late, he says, “I’m sorry I’m late,” and you accept his apology. If it’s ten minutes, you are kind of, “Okay, I’ve waited long enough. I’m going.” Sometimes people get really upset when other people are late. But Italians or Russians, for example, don’t mind if you are late. After about twenty minutes after the appointed time, they go, “Uh, he’s not here yet and what happened to him?” After about an hour they start getting worried about you and try to call to see what has happened. You know, the ways are diferent.
Politics and economics Perhaps the most signiicant relationship that is afected by outside political forces is that of the American-Russian relationship. One of the main purposes for involving the Russians in the International Space Station Program has been to funnel inancial aid to Russia and to deter Russian scientists from working on nuclear weapons technologies. Because of this underlying agenda both politics and economics have played a large part in the working relationship. In the following paragraph an American participant talks about how a senior NASA manager passed on the gist of a NASA policy decision to him: Make concessions to the Russians in order to smooth over relations and keep the Russians happy. his American participant explains how the manager’s advice is based on pressure from higher levels in the U.S. government. I know how this guy operates. He doesn’t put up with any BS. Get to the point, do the right thing for the mission.
79
80
ROCKET
And I also know that during the last week, he’s been telling people to just give the Russians this concession because we want to smooth some things over, Something he would never say . . . . And I guarantee that a big part of that is pressure that’s coming from headquarters. So, if that’s going to change, it would have to take a major policy shift starting right at the top. Keep your ingers crossed. Of course, it’s probably too late now. Like I said, we are where we are. What are we going to do now?
From a Russian participant’s perspective, one of the main purposes of the International Space Station Program is to learn to work together and to have friendly relations with the United States. his example helps to illustrate that politics has a large efect on the Space Station culture. In the following paragraph this Russian participant talks about how at least ity percent of the project is actually about good relations, as opposed to space science: I can tell you, just support this program because I think that without this support, I’m talking about American support, Russia couldn’t have this program. It’s my opinion, but I’m not sure. I think about 50 percent this is program is just good relationship between two big politics.
he following Russian participant talks about how there are diferent levels of communication and that politics has little efect on the relationship or the shared culture on an interpersonal level. However, at a higher level, the level of communication between the two agencies, politics does play a large role. At the agency level, politics forces people to do things that don’t make sense to them. Although this comment was made
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
by a Russian participant, American engineers would agree that interpersonal communication is not afected to any signiicant degree by politics, but at the agency policy level, politics does play a signiicant role. I can tell you that communication inside of a small group, this is just common, interpersonal communication, and diferent people from diferent cultures they have a lot of things [in common]. When we’re talking about intercommunication between two agencies like NASA and the Russian Space Agency, this is government stuf and . . . and this is just political reason involved in this, it’s not even personal.
European participants agree that politics plays a large role in the shared culture. Because the United States holds most of the power, many don’t believe there is a true partnership between Europe and the U.S. hey think that, in reality, that the International Space Station Program is an American project with foreign participation, as opposed to a genuine partnership. his fact is obvious to them and has been shown to be true, especially where the Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) was involved. he Europeans were angry about the cancellation of the CRV project because without it the Station crew size was limited to three people, not the originally planned crew size of seven. his decision greatly limited the presence of the European astronauts. In the following paragraph one European participant talks about how he feels the International Space Station is not a true partnership. He also admits that he feels the U.S. doesn’t show much consideration for European contributions to the ISS:
81
82
ROCKET
It’s called International Space Station but in fact it’s a NASA project with international participation . . . . This situation is due to the relative commitment and the power of countries—and the fact that Europe does not put as much money, as . . . large a share of work into the projects as the U.S. does. So it’s perfectly normal that this is the situation. But it is not an equal partnership . . . . The proof is that when NASA, not NASA but the White House, takes a position. . . Europe can do nothing except express its disappointment. That’s it. We don’t have any power. This is something that is diicult in Europe because it makes [ISS demands] diicult to sell. In Europe, there are people who are against participation in the International Space Station.
It is fairly clear that all of the participants feel that politics has a large inluence on the overall working atmosphere and environment at the agency level. However, while some participants feel that political considerations trickle down into the everyday working relationships, others consider politics to have little or no efect on the individual communication that takes place within the ISS Program. he role of economics in the ISS Program also warrants investigation. Several participants mentioned how each agency and each government has its own planning and budgeting process, and these processes can sometimes be in conlict with that of the other agencies or governments. In the following excerpt an American interviewee talks about how budgeting decisions directly afect the relationships among the partners. hey feel that some of the partners believe that high-level NASA administrators are aware of future budgeting decisions. When the other agency partners are unaware of decisions, they feel that high-level oicials are keeping
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
something secret or acting dishonestly. he suspiciousness of some of the partners frustrates some of the NASA administrators as they try to be as honest and direct as possible. However, the truth is that because many of the budgeting decisions are made at very high levels within the U.S. government and by Congress, even top-level NASA administrators are not always aware of budgeting decisions and therefore are unable to inform their international counterparts of future budgeting decisions. Trust is diicult to establish because of diferences in how the partners make decisions regarding funding. hese diferences directly afect the communication between the partners and attempts to create a shared culture among the agencies: I think one misconception that the partnership has and this is an interesting time right now cause we’re going through some major budget challenges that are gonna afect the partnership. I think that the partners believe NASA withholds a lot of information from them, [but] it is not the case. They ind it hard to believe that sometimes we just don’t know what’s gonna happen with our budget. In this particular instance we said here’s the situation today but we’ve got all summer and we really don’t know what’s gonna happen behind the scenes. They say, “Why don’t you tell us the real story?” They have a hard time believing that we don’t know and I don’t know if that’s because in their culture it would be unusual for the heads of their space agency not to know what decisions the government was gonna make in three months. I don’t know the reason for it, but that’s one thing that frustrates me as we try and share everything we can and be honest, but there’s always a little bit of a suspicion that we’re not telling them the real story.
83
84
ROCKET
Some participants also suggested that the issue of who pays for what increases tensions among the partners. Sometimes an agency doesn’t want to pay for something, but NASA disagrees, or vice versa, putting a strain on relations. In regards to the Russian-American relationship, economics greatly inluences the interactions within the International Space Station Program because the Russian-American relationship is based in part on infusing money into the Russian Space Agency and the Russian economy. he following American participant talks about the extent to which the relationship with Russia is based on economics. A large part of the U.S. position is to provide aid to Russia and to compensate the Russian government for money lost by not selling nuclear services to foreign nations. hey mention that NASA has paid for a number of the items that have been built by Russia and how economic aid is the basis of the relationship: I’m sure, you know, economics is driving this program big time, especially in Russia. They are on the receiving end of a lot of NASA money for things. That has to afect the relationship. It’s like built into the relationship, the economic impact of some things is, it’s just part of the relationship. Maybe that’s been in overall, the whole relationship with the Russians. A lot of it, a big piece of it is economic. We bought a piece of the space station, the FGB propulsion unit. The Russians built it but NASA paid for the whole thing. (The Russians built and paid for another module.) We have sent a lot of money over to Russia to help their space program. It goes back to agreements to help the Russian government make up for money lost from not selling nuclear materials and whatever to foreign countries.
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
Send four hundred million dollars or whatever, and we’re going to do it through the space programs.
his next paragraph is a Russian participant’s view on how economics afects the shared culture that is being created. his individual mentions how many Russians involved in the Station come to the U.S. to make money and explains about the diferences in the standard of living that exist between the two nations: A lot of Russians want to come in America because they make some money. Not big money, but some money, you know, and Russian understand this. America is powerful and almost every American at least you know is from middle level, he has much more better quality of life than . . . middle level person in Russia. And I don’t know, I think the people in Russia, they think about this, that America is, and they can’t do anything. . . . They want sometimes to be like France or something because they understand that you have money.
he Japanese Aeronautics Exploration Agency (JAXA) is very organized and enjoys planning ahead. he agency has contracted with various vendors, who have been given speciic instructions and deadlines based on NASA speciications to build parts of the Station. Tensions arise between NASA and JAXA when speciications need to be altered or when deadlines are extended. his occurs because of the additional economic burden that is placed on JAXA when they need to pay their vendor more money for changes or for delays. In the following quote, this respondent talks about how economics afects the U.S-Japanese partnership:
85
86
ROCKET
They have a contract with a vendor to build some hardware. Here’s how much it’s going to cost, and here’s what they want and here’s what we want it to do. And they have a schedule, and if they make any changes to that contract, they have to pay the vendor more money to make the changes. That all sounds to me very straightforward. And so they have all their hardware being built on a schedule and then with capabilities based on how they were irst deined to them in NASA as we built this International Space Station Program. We at NASA have [experienced] delays as well, and we’ve seen things changing—we’ve learned this now. We’ve asked them, “Well, you need to make this change in your hardware. You know, you’re not going to ly now for a couple of years.” And to JAXA, that has a huge impact because they have got a contract and an agreement . . . set out. Their hardware is basically done and ready to go ’cause at one point they were launching this year or next year. And so they—they have commitments to their vendors and are obliged [to fulill] those commitments. They have a schedule that’s maintained. And now we’re causing an economic heartburn for them because of these delays and what they need to do with their hardware. And now it’s going to cost them more to have to sit idle.
he subsequent American respondent agrees that diferences in the budgeting structures and processes afect U.S.-Japanese relations and can lead to tensions. Japan’s system requires long-range budget planning which can sometimes conlict with frequent assembly changes that are made by NASA:
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
I would say [the problem is] not so much with one another’s culture but the agencies that we come from, our budgeting processes, which are very diferent and that’s hard to accept. Japan, especially, needs to do a lot of long-range budget planning and so when NASA changes assembly sequence every six months, or changes things, it’s very dificult for them because of the way their system and their government are set up.
Economics and budgets also have an efect on relations between NASA and ESA. Many Europeans are not happy about helping to fund the International Space Station because they view it as an American endeavor. hey would rather their tax dollars be used to help fund European-based ventures. he following European participant voices his unhappiness: I think at the working level, from the general standpoint of the European taxpayer, I would say that I am not happy at all with the current situation of the station. But it is a much higher level than where I am. I don’t think that it is fair [that] we embark on cooperation with NASA.
Politics and economics greatly afect the shared culture that is being created within the International Space Station Program. Although communication and relationships between the partners on a worker-to-worker level may be good, outside inluences of politics and economics oten distort communication and relationships. Individuals who are involved with the Station project have very little control over political and economic decisions that are made at very high levels of government. hese decisions directly impact interpersonal communication within the Space Station project and are not necessarily
87
88
ROCKET
what is best for the group as whole, or in alignment with participant wishes.
compromises and negotiation Participants suggested several general ways in which compromises between the partners can be better reached. he irst suggested method was to allow more time to work together as a multinational team. By allowing more time to accomplish tasks and additional scheduled discussions to clarify any misunderstandings, the partners can properly ensure that everyone is in agreement with each other. Having the partners slow down and take the time to understand and agree with each other will assist them in working together as a more efective team. An American participant proposes that the partners do two things. First, reevaluate their expectations regarding how much work can be completed during a given time period, and second, as discussed above, take more time to talk about the issues at hand. By readjusting expectations and by further discussing important topics, the partners can be conident that everyone is in synch. hey can make sure that they understand each other’s perspectives and diferences. Doing so will limit misunderstandings and therefore enable the partners to work together more efectively: I think that the biggest compromise that everybody has to make is in terms of their expectations on what we can accomplish during a given period of time. I think everybody comes into meetings expecting that they’re going to be able to accomplish a lot more than what we can ever realistically get done in either a bilateral or a multilateral
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
meeting. So, that’s one of the irst compromises. I think another compromise that everybody has to make is in terms of patience. I think everybody has to adjust their ilters a little bit, maybe discuss things at greater length, you know, for the beneit of partners. It’s not always a language issue, you know. Oftentimes, we’ll come back to an issue that we thought we decided on yesterday or two days ago and it’ll come up again, because yes doesn’t always mean yes. Right?
he majority of compromises that are hard to reach are over political or management issues, rather than over technical or engineering issues. his is because many engineering issues are black and white, meaning there is a mathematically provable solution or answer that all can agree on. While the partners may sometimes be in disagreement over how to solve or answer a technical problem, these types of issues are frequently easy to resolve. However issues that involve power or money are harder to solve. he general feeling of many of the American respondents is that NASA management is much more willing to compromise than Russian management. Many of the interviewees felt that pride prevents the Russians from making compromises. his American respondent discusses why he feels Americans are more willing to compromise than are the Russians: I think our managers are much more trying to efect a compromise and a win/win and everybody feel good about the decision than the Russians are. The Russians are, I think because of . . . pride or what have you, are much more interested in being the winner. I think their culture [sup-
89
90
ROCKET
ports] that in them because they have to make an issue out of everything in their culture.
While many of the American participants feel that Russians are less willing to compromise, some of the other partners disagree. he following European respondent feels that Americans are less likely to compromise than Russians are. He suggests that Americans act like they are powerful, rich, and therefore “own the road” or get their way. It is evident that the international partners recognize the subtle American ethnocentric attitude that exists. The Russian side is frustrated with the Americans, who have a tendency to behave like they own and know the whole road and, of course, they are much richer. That’s a frustration for the Russians. And something else. Yeah. I have the feeling Americans are less likely to compromise than Russians.
A related idea suggested by both American and Russian respondents is that Russians are much better negotiators than Americans are. Russians tend to be unyielding and uncompromising and Americans have a propensity to give in easily in order to maintain harmony and good relations. In the following quote, this Russian interviewee agrees that Americans are not good at negotiating: Americans yeah. American, they no good negotiators because in some situations, they just can’t make decision even cannot negotiate, you know, just do whatever they want. But they still trying to negotiate, in my opinion.
Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program
A number of the American participants seem frustrated by the American inability to negotiate with the Russians. hey are frustrated because they feel that it is within their power to negotiate more efectively, but that the primary objective of upper management is to keep the Russians happy. Many feel that upper management keeps missing the point: that the only thing that matters to the Russians is getting their way, meeting their objective and winning, not maintaining good relations. Although the partners’ eforts to understand one another are sincere, bias and inability to empathize with the other’s perspective occasionally obstruct the negotiation process. Not all of the internal problems among the partners can be laid at the feet of cultural diferences—such characteristics as national pride and ethnocentrism are oten more manifest in the individual than in the culture group in general. Nevertheless, culturally based diferences are the cause of a variety of cultural disconnects and frustrations that oten occur during the process of working together as a multinational team. In order to work together as an efective team, the partners must try to understand each other by overcoming their diferences through compromise and negotiation—and patience. hey realize that they are not always successful.
91