Back in 2009, I lived in Romania for several months and traveled repeatedly back and fourth between Romania and Bulgaria, across the Black Sea, and everywhere throughout the region for business purposes… Let me be the first to tell you, the Balkans are a world struggling to progress while they play catch-up to Western Europe at the expense of wrestling with a communist past. There is a very strong sense of a polarized tug-of-war being played out today in the old East Bloc, and we can find evidence of this in the cultures of many Balkan nations. Romania and Bulgaria, for example, are two states trying to look towards the future while stuck reflecting on the Past. They are so intermingled, yet so far apart in the idea of progress that they exist today as bordering nations stuck in the mud on progress, and simply crossing the border between them can send a person back in time to the Soviet era of the Cold War. But to understand why this is important for international relations today – and how it relates to a globalized leadership context – you must know just a little bit of their history. However, talking about the shared history of these two nations’ transitions to their modern statuses could easily fill a 5,000 post! So let’s just focus on one for now, shall we?

During the mid-part of the 20^th Century, the USSR had swept up the Black Sea region into the Warsaw Pact Alliance for a few reasons; a counter weight against NATO, the gathering and exploitation of raw material assets throughout the areas, and the maintenance of a strong foothold in Europe were chief among the many. The Balkan states were assimilated into the pact and each took to the process very differently. Bulgaria had it easy. It did not fight its inclusion into the Soviet system, but instead found dependency on the pact. Inclusion into the USSR came to be an event that Bulgarians took advantage of and one could even say that the nation prospered from it to an extent. Bulgaria was a very poor nation (and not much to this regard has changed today) and was better equipped in farming than any other industry. After being assimilated into the USSR, the nation used the farming market to produce economic growth, and this created a good sense of stability despite the soviet impositions. As a result, until the collapse of the USSR in 1991, its economy was stable, even if its political affairs were not. Ultimately for Bulgaria, however, its own stability would be derailed at the hands of its own politicians.

In 1984, a corrupt leader plagued Bulgaria. Todor Zhivkov, general secretary of the Bulgarian Communist Party, embarked on a campaign to create a prominent “Bulgarian” identity for the state, and he did this by banning its Turkish citizens from their ethnic identities. Anything that did not conform to the idea of what Bulgaria “was” or “should be”, was outlawed. For the Turks, this was everything from their very names, to their religion and customs. When they refused to conform, he banned them as a culture from living in Bulgaria all together. His government began operations to gather and expel Turks in mass from the nation, and opened up their now empty homes and left-behind possessions for sale to the remaining Bulgarian populations. However, what he failed to realize, was that a significant portion of the Bulgarian skilled work force was now gone, and Bulgaria’s economic well-being was now at jeopardy. (Gilbert & Large, 2009)

Casting the Turks out of the nation had destabilized the states economic standpoint because so much of the workforce had grown to be manned by the Turkish population over a long period of time. Production of local industries slowed to a halt, and Bulgaria’s economy took a sharp nosedive. Lower production meant lower exportation of goods and the nations GDP trickled. It was not long before the people themselves felt the sting of Zhivkov’s decisions, and controversy began to grow and spread like wildfire. By 1989, Bulgaria’s foreign minister, Petar Mladenov, finally felt enough was enough. He led a peaceful coup in the Politburo that resulted in a takeover of the government. Zhivkov, in his late 70’s by this point, resigned his office on the 9^th of November… the same day the Berlin Wall started coming down.

Now, since the Fall of the Wall, Bulgaria has had numerous setbacks on the road towards recovery and political improvement. Bulgaria was a through and through communist nation after all, but that was not the only problem. After Mladenov took power, he reversed the politically set discrimination policies Zhivkov put in place against the Turks and welcomed them back, culture and all… but to the Bulgarian people, this was a source of much disdain. Not only were the Bulgarians a poor people not used to having many possessions – as they now had once the Turks were kicked out, but were fearful would be taken away with the reversal – but bad blood already existed between the Bulgarian people and the Turks. The Turks had invaded Bulgaria hundreds of year’s prior, and since their advancement north was held at bay by Romanian forces, Bulgarians suffered throughout the centuries as a result. To say the Bulgarians were not fond of the idea that Turks would be returning would have been an understatement, and the communists knew this. (Gilbert & Large, 2009)

Despite the fact that the USSR was in turmoil, the breakup did not exactly motivate the nation to follow suit. Communists used the resentment of the Turks to their advantage in a swift campaign to undermine the new reintegration efforts, and this persisted in making change within the old Soviet bloc increasingly more difficult to produce. Even after the brief 1991 to 1995 reform period – when anti-Communists finally had the power to fight back, old communist officials where prosecuted, and more Democratic reforms were pushed into the spotlight – the purge of Communism was thwarted yet again due to economic depression. Stagnation in the economic growth of the state itself gave rise to increasing rates of crime as the nation struggled to implement change. As a result, this gave the old communists another leg to stand on, and by 1995, they had once again been restored to power. Of course, as we all know, communism does not allow for economic growth, and the nation was soon on the brink of total collapse. Disaster loomed as the state protected its own power and assets, which only caused inflation to skyrocket. 1997 brought another try at capitalistic reform, but no matter how hard it tried to take root, the nation still suffered.

Today, the history of Bulgaria’s struggle to change since the fall of the USSR is still very apparent, even after its move towards integration into the Western European system. Walking through nearly any location within the country will prove that communism still readily exists within its borders in some way. Strong, prominent Soviet figures and landmarks can be found nearly everywhere, and everything from the poorness of the people across the countryside, to the types of conversations to avoid with locals, show how the nation has struggled since the Soviet collapse. But there is hope. Many cities are now entering into a revitalization period – like Sofia (the capitol) and Burgas – and with the help of the international community, Bulgaria is even attracting tourism with its beautiful landscapes and warm summer beaches. Who knows how the future may play out, however, one thing is for certain… Bulgaria, even after its recent acceptance into a loose NATO trial alliance (for the agreement of aid and military training), and its push to integrate a sense of European belonging within its boarders, is still a nation struggling to define itself as it plays a game of tug-of-war with its past communist attachments against its desire to progress. It would be wise to understand the subtleties of this internalized conflict the nation lives every day, if you are ever to make progress with them as well.

References:

Gilbert, Felix and Large, David C. (2009). The End of The European Era – 1890 to the Present. Sixth Edition. W.W. Norton & Company, New York | London.

Leadership shines best when order comes from chaos.

What does this statement mean? Well, it certainly is not suggesting that leadership is not present in situations where harmony exists, but instead, suggests that harmony exists due to the presence of leadership.

In the effort to achieve success in a world where increasing amounts of effort and information are needed to foster that success, increasing reliance on teamwork and collaborative efforts have created leadership challenges across grander scales. Yet, teamwork is not always easy, and members of any team do not necessarily always get along. However, despite this, typically successful teams are able to employ their best assets towards achieving the end result, despite the fact that internal disagreement may exist. What exactly is it about these dynamic teams that foster consistent success? The answer very well could lay in cultural synergy.

Moran, Harris and Moran (2011) state that Synergy is “a cooperative or combined action, and occurs when diverse or disparate individuals or groups collaborate for a common cause” (p. 233). In essence, synergy is the byproduct of effective teamwork derived from diverse sources. Now, we all recognize what diversity brings to the table… new ideas, new perspectives, new strengths and abilities, etc. Along with that, diverse teams are able to use their collective strengths to overcome their collective weaknesses, which in turn gives them an advantage. But this advantage is only useful to the team that is effective at employing those strengths, and our assessment here so far assumes the success of the team is based on the proposition that the team gets along well together. In such a case, most would be led to believe that the team’s success is derived from their ability to simply get along. Yet, this perspective would give the impression that teams who did not get along well would not be successful. And while there certainly is no argument to the evidence that proves internal conflict within a team can and will create disaster, there is also evidence to show that teams filled with personality clashes also can perform just as well. So therefore, we must ask ourselves, what is that success truly tied to? If it isn’t harmony and it isn’t chaos, what is it?

It must be Synergy. What makes teams so effective is a very well defined, shared common goal the collective effort strives for. In order to reach that goal, the team uses their divers nature to the fullest, employing their strengths towards the collective effort, while setting aside those things that do not apply. While each individual may have weaknesses, the collective drive of the team is able to overcome those individual weaknesses, creating a shared advantage and an exponential increase in total capability. However, teamwork is not all smiles and kind words, it’s hard work, and very often, an intensively steep learning curve. (p. 244) Successful teams are not necessarily those who get along well, but rather, those filled with members who truly want to be a part of that team. They want to be a part of that culture; they take the initiative to find ways to fit in, to compliment their strengths in an integrated way with the other team members. Essentially, they build upon, and integrate with the common ground, allowing the team to transcend their differences and form multifaceted strategic alliances and partnerships. (p. 233). This is Applied Synergy, Synergy in Action; and here is where organizational – and indeed, global – leaders shine.

Just because you happen to be a part of a team, in no way means that you will get along with everyone in the team.

On a small scale, U.S. Army MEDEVAC flight crews usually consist of a team of four members who operate an aircraft to perform Air Ambulance, Air Evac missions. They act as force multipliers for theater commanders, and in-theater assets that increase the collective projection of force through the capabilities MEDEVAC crews not only employ, but also merely represent to the boots on the ground. These crews consist of very highly qualified, highly dedicated individuals – from all walks of life – who are employed to a singular collective effort, and there is nothing to suggest that they all “get along” or even simply agree with one another. But they are able to transcend their individual differences in favor of the professional desire to accomplish the mission at all costs. This allows them to separate their “personal” from the “professional” and thus allows for the synergetic effects to occur.

On a much grander scale, entire nations within the NATO/OTAN Alliance do not necessarily get along well either. They all have their own wants and desires, their own needs and agendas… but NATO/OTAN itself is a strategic alliance where member states have agreed to a collective effort, and a shared common goal. This can be seen in the alliance’s very charter as Article 5 of the accord states that members have each agreed to support the efforts of other states in the application of defense and military affairs. If one nation employs military assets to provide for defense, other nations are obligated to assist with that effort. We have seen this in action over the last decade with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. While not all nations within the NATO/OTAN alliance agree on all things, they do agree on the provision of a collective effort to provide for regional stability and to rid the world of evils and threats to society.

As leaders, it is our job to find ways to allow synergy to exist. We cannot assume that our teams will always get along. After all, conflict is a simple fact of life. We all have differences, and those differences will naturally create friction between individuals. It is therefore our job to manage that conflict in a way that promotes synergy. (p. 236) Essentially, we are responsible for finding ways to direct the focus of a teams strengths towards a common goal, while managing their weaknesses at the same time. What we should always seek to do is communicate and educate our teams to provide them with a shared understanding of their purpose, direction, and motivation. Innovative and effective leaders will create a strong team culture, foster and breed a social foundation based on a common cause, and direct strengths from divers sources…

…Effectively creating order from chaos.

References:

Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., & Moran, S. V. (2011). Managing cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for cross-cultural business success (8th ed.). Oxford: Routledge.

“‘Cultural Imperialism’ in the United States, in Europe, and in other developed countries is strong. History, however, has shown that it is never sustainable in the long term” (Moran, Harris & Moran, 2011, p. 99).

What does this statement mean? It indicates how a number of societies are culturally driven to self-identify with existing pretexts already familiar to the individual, to dismiss the notion of expanding beyond the cultures accepted norms, and that these aspects are inherently disinterested in anything outside of themselves. Yet, the documented facts remain, that there exist little to no sustainability in any isolated cultural concept. Economics, history, statistics, and sociology all attest to this. It would seem then, the best course of action for leaders is to understand that you simply cannot row your boat alone… you need help outside of your own effort if you are to ever break the tide, sail the sea, and return to shore safely. And as any sailor, past or present will tell you, there is real benefit to learning from every culture you call to port upon. But getting entire societies to realize – right down to the individuals within – that such closed-mindedness and indifference to the facts would amount to eventual disaster is no easy task. After all, if they see no reason for change – yet – why should they care?

I’ll tell you why, because organizations that refuse to change will eventually cease to exist, leaving those indifferent individuals without a culture to belong to in the end. Leaders know this, and the answer to the problem of change resistance… is Leadership. “Leadership” is all about “change”. So, let’s talk about change then, shall we?

At the very foundation of “Leadership” lies the never-ending development of the “self”. Leadership can only begin to develop when the individual realizes that they cannot change the world before changing the self. What this means, is that you have zero control over the world, but total control over yourself. You cannot demand the world change for you, but instead, you must realize that, to become successful at life, you must improve yourself first. Once you finally come to terms with that, you will understand that by focusing on changing yourself for the better, will eventually create change in the world by consequence. Leadership, therefore, is the perpetual habit of looking in the mirror every single day, taking in the reality check, finding and identifying your own faults, humbly admitting them when found, and making real effort to correct them. Create change within yourself, and you will improve upon your own faults. Improving yourself will make you a better example. Become a better example, and others will follow.

Now, leaders are not “Leaders” because people follow them. After all, unlike managers whom, without anyone to manage, are no longer “managers”, leadership is a practiced concept of self-improvement that by consequence inspires others due to becoming the example to follow. “Leadership” involves the total encompassment of the self, and as such, can be practiced daily even when no one is around. However, practiced leadership inherently attracts followers, and therefore, real leaders often find themselves steering organizations. If such organizations are ever to survive for any lengthy period of time, they will surely eventually influence an increasingly global reach, and in doing so, must continuously change and adapt to move with the trends. Organizations that refuse to change will eventually cease to exist in the world, and herein lays the reasons why Leadership Development is so beneficial to organizational change.

You see, organizations themselves are self-contained societies all their own, each with cultures unique to themselves. For leaders trying to steer an organization into a new, more positive direction, this means they face every individual within that society as an obstacle resistant to change. Moran, Harris, and Moran (2011) explain, “We have a set of highly organized constructs around which we organize our ‘private’ worlds. Literally, we construct a mental system for putting order, as we perceive it, into these life spaces. This intellectual synthesis relates to our images of self, family, role, organization, nation, and universe. Such constructs then become psychological anchors or reference points for our mental functioning and well-being” (p. 113). What this means, is that human beings naturally grow attached to the cultural aspects they identify with as it applies to their lives, and as such, tend to resist any notion of change that might remove those aspects they become attached to. Leaders therefore interested in provoking a change within an organization often find themselves fighting against the entire organization that refuses to allow such change because:

1. The idea of “change” represents a disruption in the comfort of their “private worlds”, and,

2. Because individuals have anchored themselves strongly within their comfort attachments, they are often indifferent to the idea of change as they see no need for it in the first place.

So if our organizations are ever to survive for any length of time, how then do we create change when the culture refuses to allow it? How do we gain more oarsmen on our boat? The answer is complicatedly simple really… promote “Leadership” and Leadership Development!

As we just discussed, the foundations of all leadership – the very concept of what leadership “is” – is a self-motivated individual affair, however, once internalized by the individual, will become a cultural affair as a byproduct. So if we, as leaders, are ever to overcome resistance to change from within our own cultures, we can remove those barriers through the planning and promotion of Leadership Development throughout the culture itself. However, in no way is this to suggest that changing an entire culture is as easy as that. Indeed cultural change is a much longer process than many seem to think. Treviño and Nelson (2014) point out, “The development of organizational culture takes place over a number of years; effective culture change may take even longer, as much as 6 to 15 years” (p. 191). In a globalized organization, we could rightfully expect those numbers to be on the higher side, yet Moran, Harris & Moran make a good point that, “Global leaders are engaged in a continuing change process, primarily through strategic planning and management. As the introduction of many changes threatens both the existing culture and power structure, strategic response to change needs to be both decisive and planned” (p. 110).

Our conclusions on change then?

We all know the benefits of change. We know we can’t go at it alone; we’ll never break the surf otherwise. Yet, enlisting help is difficult without the understanding of purpose and direction. Leaders of all organizations can therefore promote change by providing the motivation within individuals through internalized self-development. As individuals change themselves to adapt to their environments, the culture itself will slowly begin to change as a result. After all, a culture is nothing more than a reflection of the individuals that make it, and if all individuals within an organization seek to better themselves (Leadership Development), the organization as a whole will seek the betterment of the organization. Waking up every morning, and looking at itself in the mirror, recognizing a need for a change, humbly accepting faults, and taking action to make it happen, may be the definition of Leadership Development… but it is also the method to internalized cultural change.

References:

Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., & Moran, S. V. (2011). Managing cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for cross-cultural business success (8th ed.). Oxford: Routledge.

Treviño, L. and Nelson, K. (2014). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How To Do It Right. Sixth Edition. Wiley.

Let’s start from the goal; then reverse-plan how to get there. We’ll take into considerations the possibilities and the faults, and find alternatives to the faults that reach our goal from another direction. Finally arriving at the here and now, we will see the light at the end – and all its varied paths along the way – before ever entering the tunnel.

This is the concept behind reverse planning – the hallmark of modern effective military operations – to see the light before starting the journey. And I am going to tell you something here and now about the light of Diversity (our conversation today) that is unsettling to the point that no one who’s anyone in the public realm dare speak of it. Diversity creates discrimination from its very existence, and this discrimination is the byproduct of Political Correctness – a modern way of socially enforced liberal thinking that will become the eventual death of a society.

See… I told you it would be unsettling.

Now, the idea behind diversity is not new, nor is it necessarily bad. In fact, I agree to its purpose and inception, though, not its application as sits today. Diversity can become the idea that stands a chance at bringing the world’s cultures closer together, and this empowers us through use of the vehicle of shared ideas. But when combined with political agendas, biases, and the demands of PC culture, like feminism, a once good idea has become discriminatory by nature. You may be asking just how this is possible – or condemning me on a personal level by now through the use of framing and confirmation biases derived from secondary level thinking patterns – so I already know I will need the use of an example to illustrate the point.

Say for example, you joined the Army. Now, today’s United States Army is the most advanced Army in the world. Its force projection capabilities are considered better than all others (many combined even), and today’s force is arguably the most professional and well-developed set of services of any nation. You saw many vast number of benefits in enlisting – and reconciled to the faults of such a dedicate life to service – and joined up. After many years, you finally came up for promotion to a senior level, and your packet was sent up to a board – a panel of senior members who collectively review individual promotion packets across the service – and with scores as high as yours, you easily rank in the top 5, so you believe you will be selected.

But there is one problem… The Army only has a need for 5 people to promote within your job, and while you have been ranked as the number 4 person on the list, you are both male and white. At the end of the month, the results came out, and as it turns out, you were passed over. Instead, the number 10^th and number 17^th persons on the list were selected over you, despite the fact that you were far more qualified. You worked yourself to the bone to get where you were, but all your hard work was for nothing… just what happened?!

Diversity happened. That’s what.

You see, the Army is required by law to enforce diversity in consideration of all force shaping activities, and that includes promotions. The first 9 individuals on the promotion standing list were all white males. They were numbered by highest scores – which account for a large number of blind factors – and after the first 3 positions were filled, diversity standards took over. Diversity standards within the promotional process are a numbers game based on percentages… and that means you just got struck off after years of dedication and hard work. Each packet was tossed aside until a minority group individual was found. The 10^th person was probably black or Hispanic, and maybe the 17^th person was a female. They got the job by virtue of their minority affiliation, not because they were the best qualified. (Disclaimer: this example in no way implies that minority groups do not consistently make top scores, so just forget about that argument right now)

In a world where public announcements seek the best of the best for the team, behind closed doors, we find that being white and male equals two strikes against you from the very start. The reality is, that the Army – to maintain conformity to PC standards and avoid social, political, and legal backlash – discriminates in a way that is technically not considered discrimination. Not only did you not get that promotion you worked so very hard for, but now, the career you love is being taken away from you as you were next told you can no longer stay in the Army. What?! Oh, you have too many years of service for your current rank, and now – since you didn’t get promoted – you are subjected to Retention Control Point requirements and have to leave. Good luck finding a job in the civilian world where the majority see you as either too old or without any “skills”, look down on you as a “brain washed killer”, no one “understands you”, you find it beyond difficult to “adjust”, or simply just “enter nearly any other conceivable made up reason here”. You decide to go back to school, but sitting in a classroom with a bunch of kids far younger than you not only opens you up to whole new areas of discrimination, but makes you feel like your living a real-life version of Billy Madison… You’re broke, have no job… it only gets worse, so I’ll spare you at this point, I think you get the picture.

The latter-half of this story is the real-life story of millions of Veterans today in the United States, and that “Promotion Example” is very real as well, and not just for the military, but in every single civilian corporate job out there too. Diversity should not be a standard of enforced percentages to provide for conformity for the sake of conformity, it should be the simply term we use to describe shared life experience and camaraderie, not a law, and most certainly not the reason you get passed over or lose your job. Diversity today has been described as, “differences of color, ethnic origin, gender, sexual or religions preferences, age, and disabilities.” (Moran, Harris & Moran, 2011, p. 157). But in reality, “diversity” today actually translates to “anything but white or male or the two combined”.

Diversity was seen with an end goal of cultural integration and equality in opportunity. Yet along its journey through the tunnel, somewhere it was misguided by ill intentions. Just the same as everyone else on the planet, in our example here, you didn’t ask to be born white or male, and having zero choice in the matter should not become the determining factor in disapproval for positions just because of the past references some people demand everyone hang onto. Diversity should rightfully so stand for equality for all, not equality for everyone but this guy. The globalized world today is so much better than that. Today, we live in an unfathomably integrated and culturally diverse world, and sure, there do exist bad apples out there, there is no argument in that. However, mention of such things in argument against the proposed thesis is nothing more than a red herring, an argumentative fallacy not worthy of addressing or retort. Instead, like all equality movements of the past and present, what once began as a needed recognition, spawned a compassionate realization, and over time was corrupted into doing the very thing it vowed its purpose against. Hypocrisy is the name of the game, diversity the vehicle, and political correctness the fuel. We desired a world blind of discriminatory factors, where the best truly rise to the top. After all, would you want the guy who got a C- in political science running your nation?

…neither would I, and I couldn’t care less what that person looked like either.

— —

Aim High, Dive Deep, Leave No One Behind.
AJ P.
So Others May Live

— —

References:

Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., & Moran, S. V. (2011). Managing cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for cross-cultural business success (8th ed.). Oxford: Routledge.

I was born and raised into the American military sub-culture. When I was young, it was the 80’s, the golden era of the United States military, and I remember that the culture itself was vastly different than the one I served in for over a decade so many years later. Back then, it was a family. You didn’t just go to a job, you went to see friends everyday. The individuals within your command were like close friends, and a real sense of overwhelming camaraderie filled the atmosphere. Now I am sure that each command harbored its own unique internal cultures as well. Some may have been better than others, but for the very small Naval P3[1] and NSW[2] communities I grew up around, tight knit groups in the military are all generally the same, and remain so for the most part today. But these small details are not so important as the fact that the military culture itself thrived, despite the fact that it was so varied.

I was raised by a single parent – my father – who served a full career in the United States Navy as a PH[3] in both Combat Camera and the ASW[4] community. He had a flight schedule, a deployment cycle, and often worked longer hours than I could imagine at such a young age… so one can understand that I often spent many a day at work with him. From a young age I was surrounded by extraordinary individuals from all walks of life, yet who all came together – awkwardly so at times – in the accomplishment of a common goal. Additionally, because of my father’s career, I was fortunate enough to have traveled to many places and experienced a large number of different cultures before the age of 10. Of course, the consequences of moving and traveling were constantly changing schools and never developing life-long friendships… and I am also sure I exhibit a certain amount of social ineptitude to this day as well. However, the benefits and rewards of such early-life experiences blossomed later on, and I have slowly grown to be thankful for them.

There came a time thereafter where I too joined the military. And after a time, I would eventually reach a leadership position of my own. I was fortunate enough to work myself into a military career that involved consistently working at a multinational level. At one point, while stationed in Europe, the small detachment I was assigned to worked with NATO[5] forces on a regular and routine basis, and throughout my time there, I discovered that my prior experiences with varied cultures from different places helped me to develop strong, effective relationships with my foreign counterparts. This became the hallmark of a leadership style I would use throughout my career, and even to this day.

Now, at this point in time, I had never heard of theories that dealt with Power distance, Uncertainty avoidance, Individualism, or Masculinity/Femininity aspects of cultural analysis. (Hofstede, 1984, 1991) However, I already had an innate understanding of cultural sensitivity. I appreciated people for who they were, and even maintained a certain level of sensitivity to the processes of norms they shared. As a leader, it was my responsibility, my obligation, to assure the working relationship was not compromised by mere differences, and this required that I focused on continual education and interaction to make the mission a success. (Moran, 2011) After all, as a military leader, my two basic responsibilities have always been the welfare of my men, and the accomplishment of my mission. No better way to make sure that both happen than to maintain a certain level of cultural awareness.

While the military example I have chosen to use may identify a sub-culture within a culture, it yet still finds use as an example in applied global leadership cases due to the differences in culture alone. The military itself is a smorgasbord of cultural clashes aligned through a prevailing set of standards and values, all neatly, collectively, and motivationally driven under a common cause or goal. Now combine that with the leadership responsibilities of working with other allied military personnel to accomplish a task and it makes perfect sense to see how the military example can be so good and so bad all at the same time, very simply due to complexity. Surely we can say this is a case of simple complications.

For me, however, I counted myself lucky enough to know how much I didn’t know. I had the benefit of drawing on previous experiences, whereas many others weren’t so lucky. For those unlucky enough to have never experienced foreign culture before, I can assure you the learning curve was quite steep. Even here was an opportunistic leadership example, for even here I was able to help coach, mentor, and guide others within my own culture towards a better end result. Such too are the responsibilities of global leaders; the stewardship of global leadership itself.

— —

AJ Powell
SSG (USA, Ret.)
www.ruckhq.com
www.militarymedia.net

— —

References:

Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., & Moran, S. V. (2011). Managing cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for cross-cultural business success (8th ed.). Oxford: Routledge.

— —

Footnotes

[1] P3 – Lockheed P-3 Orion. A 4 engine, turboprop, anti-submarine and maritime surveillance aircraft developed for the United States Navy, and used throughout the Cold War Era.

[2] NSW – Naval Special Warfare.

[3] PH – Photographers Mate. Naval designator for an individual Rate (Field/Occupational Specialty). Discontinued. PH was merged with MC (Mass Communication Specialist) by 2005.

[4] ASW – AntiSubmarine Warfare. An encompassing term used to describe a community of many specialists who collectively hunted submarines using advanced technology, such as SOSUS Warning Networks and MAD systems, deployed across various platforms.

[5] NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (http://www.nato.int/)

Hello, I’m AJ.

I’m a current PSU-WC student, and a senior in the BS_OL program. Geographically, I currently live in North America, but that will change in less then a year or so. I’m medically retired from the US Army (as of April 2014) and was a Standardization Instructor for Aviation and Rescue, Special Missions Senior Section Chief, and Operations Adviser. I currently own my own business, and seek to see it grow as both a short-term and long-term goal.

As far as leadership experience goes, I have worked in organizations large and small, on local and multinational levels as an expert and leader in my field(s). Aside from working for myself while attending school full-time, I am also a professional contract photographer, instructor, adviser, and writer of military and leadership articles. My hobbies include scuba diving, flying, world travel (I have been to over 50 nations so far in my life, and lived in 8), riding my home built motorcycle, snowboarding, long distance endurance athletic events, and more.

-AJ