Rocket: A Simulation on Intercultural Teamwork

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 Spafield 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 Specific 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 Debriefing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Suggested General Simulation Process Questions . . . . 22 Specific Debriefing Questions by Specialization . . . . . 24



Contentsvii

Suggested Possible Questions: International Businesspeople, Nongovernmental Organizations or Mission Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Debriefing Questions: Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Debriefing Questions: International Student Service Professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Debriefing Questions: Students Studying Outside of Home Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Debriefing 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

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 differences and misunderstandings and become sensitive to the complexity of the cultural, personal and corporate aspects of interaction. After participating in Rocket, participants will have an opportunity to discuss what they have learned. This 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, flight 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. The rules include culture-specific information about the following cultural characteristics: 00

Language Use

00

Decision Making

00

Trust and Relationship Building

00

Pride

00

Face Saving and Communication Styles

00

Work Ethic and Time Orientation

00

Politics and Economics

00

Compromise and Negotiation

Participants must work together with the other space agencies to build a model rocket. Each agency is assigned a specific 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. The full version of the simulation requires approximately two hours, although it can be shortened to one hour by using pre-assembled model rocket parts. The 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 differences among the various professional roles represented. The participants of each agency will first 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. They 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. The participants’ final task is to compose a message to the astronauts aboard the Space Station, informing them of a serious communication breakdown. After the ISS agencies have built the rocket and written the message, the facilitator(s) will hold a debriefing 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. The debriefing section includes questions that are specifically 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. The 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 offers 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 modified 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) offices 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. The 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 00

Recognize some of the differences in intercultural communication styles among the four simulation teams.

00

Discuss the cultural misunderstandings that occurred during the simulation.

00

Recognize the compromises that are needed to work together as a multinational team.

00

Gain a better understanding of intercultural group dynamics.

00

Discuss the difficulties of separating cultural differences from personality types.



Specific Objectives by Specialization

Specific Objectives by Specialization

Objectives for International Businesspeople, Nongovernmental Organizations or Mission Groups 00

Discuss how differing concepts of time affects business transactions and meetings.

00

Discuss how business protocol and power differentials vary from country to country.

00

Gather insight into international relations and political dynamics.

Objectives for Teachers 00

Distinguish how students’ cultural norms may be different from their own and from each other.

00

Explore issues related to the use of English in a mixed classroom composed of native and non-native English speakers.

00

Brainstorm what strategies a multicultural teacher can use to be more effective.

Objectives for Student Service Professionals 00

Identify the normative differences that exist between international and host-country students.

7

8

ROCKET

00

Understand how political and economic issues affect a student’s experience.

00

Discuss cultural adaptation issues.

Objectives for Students Studying Outside of Home Country 00

Gain a better understanding of how cultural norms may vary.

00

Discuss potential cultural adaptation and adjustment issues.

00

Increase insight of potential political and economic issues.

00

Expand awareness of intercultural group dynamics.

Objectives for Health Care Professionals 00

Discuss how the cultural norms and traditional health care practices of clients vary.

00

Explore how cultural norms, religion, language and gender affect patient care.

Preparation

Time Schedule If you choose to do the full version of the simulation, you will need about two hours:



Preparation

00

5 minutes:

Introduction of the simulation

00

10 minutes:

Participants read the rules

00

20 minutes: Participants work within agencies to develop a plan and assign roles

00

45 minutes: Participants work with the other space agencies to build the model rocket

00

40 minutes:

Debriefing

If you can allow only one hour for the simulation, you can do a modified version by using pre-prepared rocket parts: 00

5 minutes:

Introduction of the simulation

00

5 minutes:

Participants read the rules

00

10 minutes: Participants work within their agencies to develop a plan and assign roles

00

20 minutes: Participants work with the other space agencies to assemble the rocket

00

20 minutes:

Debriefing

Group Size This 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 different 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. The size of the American, Russian, Japanese and European agencies can vary from three participants per agency (Program Manager, Lead Engineer and Financial Officer) to six by adding a Communications Officer, an Administrator and an Integrator). The Russian team requires an additional player to act as interpreter.

Room Set-up The room used for the training session should ideally contain five 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 after 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 There 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 00

tin cans (soup, tuna, cat food or other)

00

empty plastic containers (butter tub, yogurt, etc.)

00

bottles (water, juice, soda)

00

toilet paper and paper towel rolls

00

lightweight cardboard boxes (cereal, fruit snack or other)

00

milk carton

00

newspapers

00

soda can

00

egg crate

00

other materials that you choose

List of Materials to be Shared by All Four Agencies 00

pair of scissors

00

tape (scotch and also clear packaging tape)

00

paper

00

markers



00

aluminum foil

00

rubber bands

00

paper clips

00

stapler

00

string

Materials Needed for Two-Hour Simulation

Additional Materials Needed 00

Name stickers to identify agency affiliation and role assignment, for example: ESA, Program Director

00

Table tent for each table with agency name

00

Special badge for interpreter

00

Rule Sheets

00

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 fins 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 craft or hobby shops. Label the bags as follows: 00

NASA: rocket body

00

ESA: rocket nose

00

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.

00

JAXA: rocket fins

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. The 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 The role cards explain each participant’s title (Program Manager, Financial Officer, Lead Engineer, etc.) and responsibilities during the simulation, thus helping participants to better understand their specific objective and task. The 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 after your introduction is finished. The role cards are meant to be flexible enough to allow for varying group size. The first three roles (Program Manager, Financial Officer 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 filled first. For groups between 13–25 participants assign the remaining role cards (Communi-



Simulation Day

cations Officer, 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 There 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: 00

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.

00

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).

00

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-specific 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-specific rules for interaction and keeping within the boundaries of their goals.



Simulation Day

Reemphasize that all four agencies have their own specific 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, briefly 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. This 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 first 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 different



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 flexibility. 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 first and then for every five minutes until the last five minutes, when the countdown is set for one-minute increments. During the final 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 different every time you run it. As you know, individual personalities interact during the simulation and affect 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 affect 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. Then ask participants to return to their tables for a debriefing session—or ask them to form a circle for discussion. This 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 debriefing. Debriefing

Suggested General Simulation Process Questions Before you begin the actual debriefing, 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 different or new discussion starters. There are also too many questions below to cover adequately; choose those that are most relevant to the group’s experience during the simulation. 00

Now that you have heard the rules for the other agencies, in what ways do you better understand their behavior during the simulation?

00

How well did your agency function within the constraints of your rule sheet?



Debriefing

00

Do you feel like your agency worked together as a team? How so?

00

How did the rules of your agency’s culture affect how you approached the large group?

00

During the simulation, what differences in intercultural communication styles were you able to recognize among the other agency teams?

00

If you found yourself slipping into stereotypes at any time during the simulation, can you give examples of those stereotypes?

00

What cultural misunderstandings or impasses occurred when you worked with the other agencies?

00

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?

00

What did you learn in general from this simulation that you can use when you work with diverse groups of people?

00

What types of strategies helped you be successful at working and communicating with team members from other agencies?

00

When you all worked together, how well did you concentrate your energy on working with your direct counterparts (Program Manager, Lead Engineer, Financial Officer, etc. . .)?

00

To what extent did financial pressures and objectives affect your ability to work together as an international team?

00

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 affect 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? 00

To what extent did you trust the other agencies? Do you feel that they understood your position and constraints?

00

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?

00

How did you approach the writing of the message to the astronauts?

00

What aspects of the simulation have helped you have a better understanding of intercultural group dynamics?

00

Were you able to differentiate any behavior that might have been driven by personality characteristics rather than by cultural differences during the simulation? If so, what personality-driven behaviors did you observe?

00

What will you remember most about having participated in this simulation and debriefing?

Specific Debriefing Questions by Specialization Suggested Possible Questions: International Businesspeople, Nongovernmental Organizations or Mission Groups 00

What were some of the differing perceptions and uses of time you found in this simulation?



Debriefing

00

How might differing concepts of time affect business transactions or relations?

00

What were some of the differences between how each of the space agencies went about establishing trust? What can you learn from this about establishing trust with a client?

00

Which of the space agencies would you categorize as being direct? Which would you categorize as being indirect?

00

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?

00

How did the etiquette and protocol among agencies vary in this simulation, in your own experience internationally?

00

What were some of the political dynamics that occurred in this simulation?

00

How do they compare to political dynamics that you have experienced?

00

How do business hierarchies and power differentials vary from country to country/region?

00

What role did economics play in this simulation?

00

How does international economics affect your relationships with clients?

00

What effect does economics have on the communication process?

25

26

ROCKET

Debriefing Questions: Teachers 00

What strategies can you use to be more effective with diverse students?

00

In what ways might your students’ norms for interaction be different from your own and from each other?

00

What was the role of language in this simulation? What language issues arise in your classroom? How do students perceive their native language? English?

00

What was the Americans’ attitude toward second language use in the simulation? In your experience?

00

What assumptions did the Americans make about the English language abilities of the European agency?

00

What were some of the differences 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?

00

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?

00

What are some things you can do to help improve communication with your non-native English-speaking students and their families?



Debriefing

Debriefing Questions: Student Service Professionals 00

What normative or cultural differences in this simulation are similar to the differences that exist between international students and host country students?

00

What role do you feel politics and economics play in developing relationships between students, with each other and with host country students?

00

When you were asked to use cultural norms different from your own to communicate, how did you feel?

00

What types of cultural adaptation and adjustment issues do international students face?

00

In what ways do international students need to adapt to a new set of cultural norms or rules?

Debriefing Questions: Students Studying Outside of Home Country 00

How might your cultural norms vary from those in the host country?

00

During the simulation what, if any, difficulty did you experience in using a different set of cultural norms/ rules?

00

What types of culturally based behavior might you be expected to adapt to?

27

28

ROCKET

00

In what way(s) did participation in this simulation expand your awareness of intercultural group dynamics?

00

What types of political or economic issues could arise when studying in a foreign country?

00

What effect 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?

Debriefing Questions: Health Care Practitioners 00

What different approaches and attitudes toward communication did you experience during the simulation? How might such attitudes play out in your practice?

00

What were some of the normative differences among the four agencies?

00

What are some of the cultural differences in your client’s heath care practices?

00

What effect does their traditional health care practices and view of health care have on your ability to provide services to them?

00

What effect do you think power and hierarchical differences had among the agencies in the simulation? How do power differences in your professional situation (among doctors, specialists, nurses and other care givers) contribute to patient/client care, to self-esteem?



Debriefing

00

What types of language difficulties did you encounter in the simulation? What about your own practice?

00

What is the role of trust in providing health care? In the simulation, what were some of the differences in how the partner countries established trust?

00

What things can you do to help build trust with your clients?

00

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 five 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 identification 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 fins) 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 debriefing discussion guide questions to participants, make enough copies for everyone. To allow for greater flexibility 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 financial 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 specific assignment.

*Note: Sometimes groups will jump right into working with the other agencies when first 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 fit 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 specific 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 debriefing session



Rule Sheets and Role Cards

Rule Sheets and Role Cards Rule Sheet for RSA (Russia) Agency Specific Task: The 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 fit and design compatibility. Then 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 offered 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 benefit 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. This message needs to be written in both Russian and English. All four agencies must sign off on the message. Culture Specific Information: Please base your interactions on the following: Language and Communication Style: English is the official 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. The interpreter is an outside contractor and therefore cannot make any decisions.

35

36

ROCKET

Decision Making: The 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 first 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 often 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. The 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 Specific Task: The task of the Japanese Aeronautics Exploration Agency (JAXA) is to supply the rocket with fins. Design and make the fins using the materials provided, checking in with the other agencies for fit and design compatibility. Then attach the fins to the body of the rocket. More than a fifteen-minute delay in fin attachment will cost JAXA $500,000. This is why you must make sure that the fins 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. After attaching the fins, you will work with the other agencies to make sure that the fin design is not compromised. After 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 off on the message. Culture Specific 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 official 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 often 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 often 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 effort. Decision Making: Your agency uses a consensus-based system for making decisions; for this reason your team must make all decisions together. You often 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. The 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 first, 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: The Japanese Space Agency is very organized and enjoys planning ahead. Tensions arise between your team and others when you need to alter specifications or extend a deadline. You need to be flexible 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 Specific Task: The 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 fit 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. The 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. After 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 off on the message. Culture Specific Information: Please base your interactions on the following: Language and Communication Style: English is the official language of the International Space Station (ISS) Program. Because the members of your team are from different 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 often 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 figure out what the point of the message is. You are concerned that the Americans, in their efforts 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, often 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 often. It is difficult 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 off 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 five 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. This 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 Specific Task: The NASA contribution to the rocket is the body. You will first design the body of the rocket using the materials provided. Although you must check with the other three teams for fit and size, you expect them to adapt their structures to yours. Then you are to work with the Europeans to attach the nose, the Russians to attach the engine and the Japanese to attach the fins. 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 fit of their rocket parts. After 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 off on the message, you need to make it clear that you are the leader in this project. Culture Specific Information: Please base your interactions on the following: Language and Communication Style: English is the official 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 effort to learn to speak English. To appease the Russians, however, you allow them to use an interpreter, which you find 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 financial matters, you often 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 suffer 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 offend them. You often 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 Officer and Lead Engineer first. Depending on group size, add a Communications Officer, 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 Officer: 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 fit 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 Officer: 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 final message. You must make sure that it is written in both Russian and English and that all four agencies sign off 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 Officer and Lead Engineer first. Depending on group size, add a Communications Officer, 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 Officer: 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 fin 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 fins of the rocket. If you are building your rocket from recycled materials then your job is to choose the items that will best fit your purpose. You will help, in coordination with the other three teams, to attach the fins to the other rocket parts. (If you are doing the one-hour simulation, the fins will already be preassembled.)



Rule Sheets and Role Cards

4 Communications Officer: 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 effects. 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 off on the message.

6 Integrator: You are to help make sure that the fins are the first item to be attached to the body of the rocket and are concerned with how well the fins fit together with the other country’s components. After your fins have been attached, you must work with the other agencies to make sure that your fins 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 Officer and Lead Engineer first. Depending on group size, add a Communications Officer, 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 off, it is your job to make sure that your entire agency goes on vacation and leaves the room at least once for about five minutes during the building of the rocket.

2 Financial Officer: 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 fit 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 Officer: Because you all speak different 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 different countries, you may have different ideas. It is also your responsibility to make sure that all four agencies sign off 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 Officer and Lead Engineer first. Depending on group size, add a Communications Officer, an Administrator and an Integrator.

1 Program Manager: You are concerned with relations with other space agencies and the political effects of actions taken. You are to make sure that the partner agencies, especially the Russians, are kept happy.

2 Financial Officer: 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 fit 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 Officer: 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 off on the message.

6 Integrator: You are concerned with how well the rocket parts fit together with the other country’s components and you must ensure that each rocket part is high quality and safe to fly. It is your responsibility to make sure that the final rocket is structurally sound and flight ready.

51

Pa r t T w o

Supplemental Reading— Misunderstandings



Instructions for Use

Instructions for Use This training simulation is based on 22 qualitative interviews with astronauts, trainers, engineers, flight directors and administrators from the United States, Russia, Japan and Europe. The 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 find 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 different 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. The 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 differences that detract from the effectiveness of the work environment. Tensions or difficulties within the team are often due to individual personality traits rather than cultural mindsets. Many team members also felt that some disagreements are caused by the differences 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 differences 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 identified 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 official 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 official 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 difficulties 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 differences, a written document often accompanies oral communication. In the following quote, one American participant acknowledges that linguistic differences do in fact put a Japanese, Russian or European partner at a disadvantage. This 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 definitely 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 fluent 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 inflection differ from culture to culture, participants often misread or incorrectly interpret these tacit messages. This 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 differ among cultures, only a few admitted that in practice these differences are often misread and are the cause of communication problems. The majority of interactions between Americans and Russians occurs with the use of an interpreter. Although interpreters enable communication, they are often the cause of additional frustrations. Often 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. Often 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 soften 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. The 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 finds 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. The 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 difference 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 often holds separate conversations in Japanese. The Americans, as well as other partners, seem to be sympathetic to these Japanese side discussions, even though they often slow down communication. The Japanese also frequently use “sidebar” conversations as a method of building consensus. The 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 finished.

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 difficulties notwithstanding, the Japanese try their very best to communicate in English. The Englishspeaking partners recognize the difficulty the Japanese face and respect them for their effort. The following quote from a Japanese participant notes that although the American and Japanese cultures are very different, 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 different 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. This is, of course, because the European Space Agency (ESA) itself consists of people from a variety of nations and language groups. Therefore, the only common language among ESA members is often English. For this reason an ESA employee from Spain usually communicates in English with his ESA colleague from Germany. The following quote illustrates communication among Europeans within ESA: One of my office mates for the last three years was French. And there was another French guy in the office next door. They would usually talk in French to each other, but the German guy in the next office 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 different, then they speak English.

It is perhaps because members of ESA speak in English with each other that most of the Americans feel justified 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 differences. In contrast, all of the European participants feel that, in some respects, they are hampered by their language differences, 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 often unaware that the Europeans may be feeling left out of the group. The 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 figure 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 differences in how the partners make decisions together as a multicultural team. Because each of the partners has a different 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 specific area of expertise. In contrast, the Japanese have a more consensus-based system for making decisions. Often 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. This 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 different than NASA. At the end finally 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.

The following paragraph states one American participant’s perception of the differences in how partners go about decision making. This 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 different 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 definitely take it up their management chain and their managers make that decision independently. So, you get that kind of feel from working with the different kinds of partners.

This Russian participant agrees with the American observations about the differences between American and Russian decision making. The participant states that in Russia his superior is always expected to make decisions and that a specific 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 specific 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 confirms 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. This 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 fired or something like that, they will find other job that will do whatever they want. They can, you know, lose some money, but it’s not so big difference. In Russia probably different because it’s hard to find good job.

The 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. The 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 find a consensus. It’s different 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 offices at NASA are organized reflect the collective nature of decision making and teamwork. In ESA people have individual offices and work on individual projects, but at NASA they share offices and work together collaboratively: If you’re going to ESA, you will see individual offices for people who are working there. . . . Okay? So, probably this tells you something about teamwork. Here, the offices are shared by four people, five, 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 office. 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 different. Looks like people sharing offices, 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. This view is reiterated by a number of the American participants.

67

68

ROCKET

The following American participant feels that building trust is often 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 difficult 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 first 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 often 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. This particular cultural difference, trust, has caused many misunderstandings and resentments between American and Russian partners. The 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 left 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. This 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 confidentiality. 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. . ..

The 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 stuff. 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. This 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 differences. 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 often 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 difficult.

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 differences and try their best to accommodate them.

Pride Although there seems to be a general sense of mutual respect for one another, often 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 specific co-worker often coexist with pride. Almost all of the American participants in the study felt that Russian pride (and sometimes American pride, too) often interfere with the working relationship. The Americans said they made an effort 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. The 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 often 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 often 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. The 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.

The interviews suggest that the Americans have tried two different approaches to communicating with the Russians. The first approach is to keep them happy at all costs. The second approach is to get what NASA wants. In the first 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 effort not to offend or upset anyone. This approach ties into the underlying political goal of strengthening international relations and furthering good will among the partner nations. The object of the first approach is to save face, to not embarrass or offend 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 difference in communication style. The 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 difference 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 difference in communication style. Today, perhaps because neither side wants to offend the other, the concept of saving face by using an indirect style of communication is understood by all and often used. Most of the Europeans feel that their American counterparts are very polite, almost too polite. In fact the Americans are often 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 different cultures. I mean, I find 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 often 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 difficulty with, because my way of thinking is different. 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 Differences in how the cultures view work responsibilities and time off 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. This difference in attitude toward work is the cause of frustration and resentment, especially during emergency situations in which the Russians need to be contacted. The following quote is from an American participant who talks about this difference 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 off 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.

The 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 off for vacation and to spend time with their families. Europeans view Americans as being over-worked and stressed all the time. They feel that Americans don’t take enough vacation time and don’t know how to relax. The following except is from a European interview and discusses this cultural difference: Superficially, 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 definitely a big difference.

Work ethic and time orientation are usually closely related. For Russians, Spaniards and Southern Europeans, time is more flexible than it is for Western Europeans, the Japanese or Americans. Now and then, this difference 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 five 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 different.

Politics and Economics Perhaps the most significant relationship that is affected 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 financial 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. This 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 fingers 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. This example helps to illustrate that politics has a large effect on the Space Station culture. In the following paragraph this Russian participant talks about how at least fifty 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.

The following Russian participant talks about how there are different levels of communication and that politics has little effect 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 affected to any significant degree by politics, but at the agency policy level, politics does play a significant role. I can tell you that communication inside of a small group, this is just common, interpersonal communication, and different people from different 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 stuff 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. They think that, in reality, that the International Space Station Program is an American project with foreign participation, as opposed to a genuine partnership. This fact is obvious to them and has been shown to be true, especially where the Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) was involved. The 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. This 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 difficult in Europe because it makes [ISS demands] difficult 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 influence 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 effect on the individual communication that takes place within the ISS Program. The 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 conflict with that of the other agencies or governments. In the following excerpt an American interviewee talks about how budgeting decisions directly affect the relationships among the partners. They 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 officials are keeping

Misunderstandings in the International Space Station Program

something secret or acting dishonestly. The 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 difficult to establish because of differences in how the partners make decisions regarding funding. These differences directly affect 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 affect the partnership. I think that the partners believe NASA withholds a lot of information from them, [but] it is not the case. They find 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 influences 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. The 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. They 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 affect 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.

This next paragraph is a Russian participant’s view on how economics affects the shared culture that is being created. This individual mentions how many Russians involved in the Station come to the U.S. to make money and explains about the differences 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.

The Japanese Aeronautics Exploration Agency (JAXA) is very organized and enjoys planning ahead. The agency has contracted with various vendors, who have been given specific instructions and deadlines based on NASA specifications to build parts of the Station. Tensions arise between NASA and JAXA when specifications need to be altered or when deadlines are extended. This 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 affects 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 first defined 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 fly 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 fulfill] 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.

The subsequent American respondent agrees that differences in the budgeting structures and processes affect U.S.-Japanese relations and can lead to tensions. Japan’s system requires long-range budget planning which can sometimes conflict 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 different 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 difficult for them because of the way their system and their government are set up.

Economics and budgets also have an effect 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. They would rather their tax dollars be used to help fund European-based ventures. The 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 affect 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 influences of politics and economics often 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. These 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. The first 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 effective 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 confident that everyone is in synch. They can make sure that they understand each other’s perspectives and differences. Doing so will limit misunderstandings and therefore enable the partners to work together more effectively: 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 first compromises. I think another compromise that everybody has to make is in terms of patience. I think everybody has to adjust their filters a little bit, maybe discuss things at greater length, you know, for the benefit 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?

The majority of compromises that are hard to reach are over political or management issues, rather than over technical or engineering issues. This 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. The 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. This 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 effect 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. The 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. They are frustrated because they feel that it is within their power to negotiate more effectively, 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’ efforts 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 differences—such characteristics as national pride and ethnocentrism are often more manifest in the individual than in the culture group in general. Nevertheless, culturally based differences are the cause of a variety of cultural disconnects and frustrations that often occur during the process of working together as a multinational team. In order to work together as an effective team, the partners must try to understand each other by overcoming their differences through compromise and negotiation—and patience. They realize that they are not always successful.

91