Originally when I think of Russia, the stereotypes of Vodka, KGB, that all Russians are named Ivan or Natasha, and that they wrestle Bears are what immediately comes to mind.  Many of these stereotypes are perpetuated by Hollywood, from movies like The Avengers, where the character Black Widow (Natasha) whose backstory is a Russian spy. But, on a more serious note, after googling Russian news articles the number of articles that surfaced about poisoning reveal a more serious stereotype that I have heard but was hesitant to discuss.  That stereotype being that the Russian Government uses or allegedly uses chemical agents to poison potential opposition.

In September 2020, Alexey Navalny, a Russian politician, lawyer, and founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation who has spoken out against Russia’s president Vladimir Putin was poisoned.  A video of Alexey agonizing in pain while in an airplane from the Siberian city Tomsk, to Moscow.  After testing of water bottles Alexey had drank from, forensic testing concluded that the chemical agent Novichok or AA234 was the poison used as an attempt to kill Alexey (Halasz, Jones, & Mezzofiore, 2020).  Russia’s government denied any involvement.  But there has been a history of poisoning of those who spoke out against the Russian government.  Why poison? It instills fear in its enemy, and more importantly plausible deniability, poisoning allows the Russian government the ability to say they had nothing to do with it, and it is less theatrical than an assassination via gunshot.

While spies, assassination, and poisoning make for a thrilling spy novel.  Assassinations via poison impacts the country’s identity and the way the world views their National Culture. Hofstede describes Culture as the “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (Penn State, 2020). Does this make the Russian president a Dictator? The answer is No.  A dictator is a ruler with absolute power over a region, power which has oftentimes been obtained by force (Provenzano, 2020). Russia holds elections, and many of those elections have been contested, there have been accusations of voter fraud, nonetheless the election process is what gives Putin’s regime credibility that the election system is honest.

Regardless, the global publicity, and if the poisonings are revealed to be true, the damage to the country’s image is already set in motion.  How the world perceives Russia’s culture is controlled by who’s in charge.  It leaves naïve Americans like myself under the impression that their president utilizes fear to control the people of their country.  It also makes me consider whether Russia is really a threat, their continued alleged usages of assassinations via poisonings will continue to tarnish Russia’s global image and perpetuate the stereotypes and prejudices many hold against their culture.

Reference

Berger, M., & Taylor, A., (2020).  Why poison is the weapon of choice in Putin’s Russia. Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/08/21/why-poison-is-weapon-choice-putins-russia/

Halasz, S., Jones, B., & Mezzofiore, G., (2020). Novichok nerve agent used in Alexey Navalny poisoning, says German government. CNN.  Retrieved from: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/02/europe/alexey-navalny-novichok-intl/index.html#:~:text=Russian%20opposition%20leader%20Alexey%20Navalny%20was%20poisoned%20with,the%20Novichok%20group%2C%20the%20German%20government%20said%20Wednesday.

Provenzano, B., (2020). Is Vladimir Putin a dictator? Here’s what the experts have to say. MIC. Retrieved from: https://www.mic.com/articles/156026/is-vladimir-putin-a-dictator-here-s-what-experts-have-to-say

According to Hofstede’s power distance scoring system, Mexico scored a rating of 81, while the world average is a score of 59.31 (Penn State, 2020). Power distance refers to the attitudes and way that powerful or nonpowerful members of a culture are treated (Penn State, 2020). Masculinity and Femininity are about gender roles, with Mexico scoring a 69 for Masculinity which is above the world average of 49.53 (Penn State, 2020). Hofstede describes cultures that lean towards higher uncertainty avoidance as having a lot of laws and rules to reduce ambiguity, Mexico has an uncertainty avoidance score of 82, while the world average is 67.64 (Penn State, 2020).

In many Hispanic cultures such as that of Mexican culture, masculinity dominates the average household. In Veronica Ortiz’s “The Culture of Machismo in Mexico Harms Women” she describes Machismo as a commonly used synonym for sexism and misogyny and is a word that promotes an attitude and conception that men are by nature, superior to women (Ortiz, 2018).  Machismo reinforces the idea that women in Mexico are second-class citizens and the expectation is for them to be the “the little lady of the house” (Ortiz, 2011). In 2011, the Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto was asked during an interview about the price of Tortillas, his response was “I don’t know, I am not the lady of the house” his response was viewed as humorous and quick-witted, sadly it reinforces the idea that machismo and masculinity is king (Ortiz, 2018). Domestic violence and femicide within Mexico are on the rise, violent offenses against women have gone up 7.7 percent in 2020 (Saez, 2020). The Machismo mentality has fostered a culture that protects the aggressor by normalizing hyper-masculine conduct (Saez, 2020).

Regarding a global leadership perspective, President Trump has been able to leverage Machismo within his current political campaign as a source for attracting potential Mexican American and Hispanic voters. Much of this reason is that Mexican American voters are conservative with the valued beliefs of family, church, and work being on the top of things they view as a priority (Navarette, 2019). Even though the president has made comments regarding Mexicans as rapists, murderers, or cartel members, along with his own controversies regarding his extramarital relations and views towards women (Navarette, 2019).  A culture that views masculinity as King, women as second-class citizens, bad behavior, and negative comments are easy to forgive from a candidate that fits the Machismo leader profile.

President Trump’s popularity amongst Hispanic and Mexican-American voters makes me consider as well as provides some validation towards Mexico’s power distance score of 81, uncertainty avoidance score of 82, and masculinity score of 69 all of which are on the higher end of the rating scale and all above the world averages (Penn State, 2020).  Between scoring above average in the three (uncertainty avoidance, power, and masculinity) scoring areas are these parallel with the ideology of the Machismo mentality?

 

Reference

Navarette, R., (2019). Millions of Latinos are Trump supporters.  Here’s what they’re thinking. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/26/latinos-for-trump-supporters-hispanics-mexicans-attacks-immigrants-column/4224954002/

Ortiz, V.L. (2018). The Culture of Machismo in Mexico Harms Women. Merion West. Retrieved from https://merionwest.com/2018/01/28/the-culture-of-machismo-in-mexico-harms-women/

Pennsylvania State University (2020). Leadership in Global Context – OLEAD 410. Lesson 02: Introduction to Culture. Hofstede’s Dimension of Culture. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2075490/modules/items/29697156

Saez, E. (2020). Machismo: Toxic Masculinity Within Hispanic Culture. Best of SNO. Retrieved from https://bestofsno.com/44900/features/machismo-toxic-masculinity-within-hispanic-culture/

A recent article caught my attention, “Chief Bass: Disrespect of fellow airmen must stop — now” originally I thought it was a reference to the rivalry between military branches and how the Air Force often gets picked on the most.  But, after reading a bit further, the article was referring to a previous “Demanding Positive Change” article written after an article about two sisters (in the Air Force) serving together overseas received a large number of disparaging comments revealing that sexual harassment within the service is still a problem (Losey, 2020). The “Chief” who happens to be the first female Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, JoAnne Bass, addressed this issue by stating “Respect is non-negotiable” and that the Air Force needs a culture “that embraces diversity and is deliberate about inclusion, where our Airmen can focus on the profession of arms that they willingly chose to serve. And a culture where our Airmen are valued, respected, and see a future for themselves.” (Losey, 2020).

In “Demanding Positive Change” which was written by one of the serving sisters who is a public affairs specialist explains that social media has become the platform that allows sexism and sexual harassment to continue to circulate (Fejerang, 2020).  The comments began as sarcastic humor then quickly escalated to cruder and harsher degrading sexualized comments. Social media has become the platform for sexism, sexual harassment, and harassment to thrive which is largely due to user anonymity along with a sense of pride from being labeled a troll with the minimal consequence of having their online profile suspended. Harassment from online Trolls is comical to many and viewed similarly as an annoying pop-up advertisement that has become a norm for online readers. While online trolls are not a surprise to many, what was surprising for Staff Sergeant Fejerang was that the degrading comments her article received were not exclusive to male harassers, many were also from female users (trolls) (Fejerang, 2020).

The article continued to explain that trolls and online sexual harassment gives visibility to a portion of the challenge’s women face in the military.  One more severe and unfortunate example that received media attention was the death of Private First-Class Vanessa Guillen (Jones & Sanchez, 2020).  Her death was caused by her alleged harasser who later committed suicide moments before being apprehended by law enforcement (Jones & Sanchez, 2020).

For change to take place mechanisms need to be put in place, we can no longer view the disparaging comments as humor, which is a cover for a toxic culture.  The military has taken steps in the past towards changing the culture, in 2016 the military removed a ban that prohibited women from serving in combat occupations like infantry, artillery, and combat engineer.  This year the Air Force was the first branch to select a female as their branches Senior Enlisted Advisor, along with this decision was their selection of an African American four-star General as their Chief of Staff.

Change is uncomfortable, and I can imagine policing up those that make online harassment will be a challenge.  In “Demanding Positive Change” many of the excuses for the comments were being defended through victim-blaming with comments such as “Whose idea was it to post this article on social media?” (Fejerang, 2020). This problem fits into Schein’s three-stage template for planned change: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing (Penn State, 2020). CMsgt of the Air Force Bass’s comments that “respect is non-negotiable” is another step towards disconfirmation, organizational members need to know that sexual harassment and the associated behaviors are not welcomed anywhere which includes online (Losey, 2020).  Once a level of consequence can be established a sense of psychological safety can be present and new positive solutions will be open for introduction (Penn State, 2020).

Reference

Fejerang, H., (2020). Demanding Positive Change. Airforce Times. Retrieved from

https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinion/commentary/2020/09/04/demanding-positive-change/

Jones, K., & Sanchez, R., (2020). Pfc. Vanessa Guillen bludgeoned to death on Army base,

family attorney says. CNN.  Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/us/vanessa-guillen-fort-hood-disappearance/index.html

Losey, S. (2020). Chief Bass: Disrespect of fellow airmen must stop-now. Airforce Time.

Retrieved from https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/10/08/chief-bass-disrespect-of-fellow-airmen-must-stop-now/

Pennsylvania State University (2020). Leadership in Global Context – OLEAD 410. Lesson 05:

Learning and Change in a Global Setting. Planned change. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2075490/modules/items/29697176

Within the last week, the US Army has taken a step towards modifying their culture by eliminating an event that has been more “shock and awe” than it was beneficial. What has become known as the “shark attack”, an event where recruits are first introduced to their Drill Sergeants.

Recruits spend the first five to six days in a reception company which is led by cadre, recruits receive uniforms, immunizations, and are run through a variety of events that prepare them administratively for basic combat training. Afterward, they are shipped via bus to their new company barracks where they will live and conduct basic training.  Upon arrival they are greeted by their company’s Drill Sergeants, their introduction comes in the form yelling and screaming (instruction) to exit the bus and are continuously fed instructions by Drill Sergeants via portable megaphone.  The distance from the parking lot to the assembly area can be less than 100 meters, but as 200 to 240 stressed recruits all carrying their newly issued belongings in duffel bags, combined with ten to fifteen Drill Sergeants circling, with many zeroing in on the slowest recruit within the herd is a scene resemblant of a “shark attack”.

“People believe that if you learned the language, you could make yourself understood in a foreign culture” the shark attack is an event where recruits must rapidly learn a new language through stress and momentary chaos (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014, p. 35).  “Edward Hall the founder of the intercultural communication field, argued as much as 80 to 90 percent of the message we communicate or receive is nonverbal” this statement rings true during the shark attack (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014, p. 35). As chaos ensues, recruits often merge into a herd and mimic the person next to them, whether its emptying duffel bags, or raising an item of equipment, many are confused, they are no longer listening, and resort to using nonverbal methods to interpret the message.

According to Fisher (2020), “The shark attack was seen as a way to launch trainees into a whole new way of life in which they’d have to obey the Army’s rules and listen closely to and follow instructions. The aim was to first establish psychological dominance – impress upon them at the outset that now that they’re in the Army, the Army’s the boss.”

As organizations across the world have been forced to experience change due to COVID-19, through layoffs, telework, and the determination of essential vs non-essential personnel. Changes due to the virus have altered the organizational culture for all employers. The US Army has had to experience its changes due to the virus. As recruits enter the Army, they come from every part within the United States and converge for three months to conduct basic training, creating an environment that is prime for the spread of a highly contagious virus. Senior Army leaders had to consider continuing an event that has become a rite of passage versus the risks associated with a global pandemic.

As we look at the US Army as an employer with its own set of values, vision, and mission.  Are there substantial benefits from allowing Drill Sergeants to continue this one event, and how do they align with the organization’s values and culture? The image of a Drill Sergeant yelling in a recruit’s face has been glamorized by movies and has become a bragging right for veterans. As organizations are forced to transform, the Army is no exception. An alternative to the shark attack is still in development, but, leaders like Command Sergeant major Fortenberry who is in charge of the Army’s school of infantry, are considering a replacement for the shark attack version of reception with a newer version that better aligns with the values, attitude, and history that makes up the Army as a culture (Fisher, 2020). Fisher explains “The shark attack, Fortenberry says, “was developed during our draft Army years, were the cornerstones of the event were to establish dominance and authority using intimidation and fear to weed out the weak of heart.”  The replacement to the shark attack is an obstacle like an event that forces teamwork through stress and better aligns with the generations entering the military and the culture that the US Army aims to produce.

References

Fisher, F., (2020). Infantry School ends traditional “shark attack,” adopts new way of instilling

warrior ethos in recruits. Army.mil. Retrieved from https://www.army.mil/article/239135/infantry_school_ends_traditional_shark_attack_adopts_new_way_of_instilling_warrior_ethos_in_recruits

Moran, R.T., Abramson, N.R., & Moran, S.V. (2014). Managing Cultural Differences 9^th edition. Oxford: Routlege.