Stevens Initiative Launches Grassroots Global Conversations among Youth

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

The first group of awardees of the Chris Stevens Virtual Exchange Initiative competition, limited to US NGOs in its first year, was announced this week in Washington, DC. The program is part of a multi-year effort to generate cross-cultural communications among young people in the US. Middle East, and North Africa (MENA). An international public-private partnership, the Stevens Initiative is named in honor of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in Libya and had been a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco.

The Aspen Institute is hosting the Initiative and managing the process of awarding grants through competitions to be held annually, beginning in the US and then extended throughout the MENA region. A defining feature of the Initiative is the central role played by technology to create virtual exchanges, according to the Aspen Institute, “to improve understanding, respect, and dialogue across cultures and equip young people with the skills they need to succeed in a global economy.”

The exchanges focus on creating virtual classrooms where students connect from different parts of the world to learn and work together on a variety of defined subjects, and through this interaction, to develop better understanding and respect for each other and their cultures. Recognizing that in most countries, access to the Internet could be limited by economic and social factors, the Initiative places special consideration on projects that reach into underserved and marginalized communities.

The Initiative is providing $5 million to support the new online programs, which aim to bring more than 20,000 young people together to engage in cross-cultural learning experiences in 17 countries in the Middle East and North Africa and in 25 American states.

As Elliot Gerson, Executive Vice President of the Aspen Institute noted, “Our goal is to spark conversations between students in countries around the world – conversations to exchange ideas and information and to work together on addressing important issues. We are excited at the prospect of helping to prepare a new generation of global citizens.”

Most programs will launch in spring 2016 and continue for a period of two years. Among the projects:

  • Online English and Arabic language exchange between students in California and their peers in Morocco and Saudi Arabia
  • Using media tools, including virtual reality, as a springboard for conversation and social learning among middle and high school students, including Syrian refugees, in Kentucky, New York, and Jordan
  • Environmental studies projects for students in the United Arab Emirates and the United States
  • A virtual “study abroad” program for students in Iraq, Illinois, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, and Wisconsin

Evan Ryan, Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, added that “By creating opportunities for engagement among students, teachers, and professionals, the Stevens Initiative honors Ambassador Stevens’ legacy.”

The next round of the competition, scheduled for later in 2016, will be open to applicants from the MENA and the US. It will focus on sharing best practices and on research into how to measure the impact of the Initiative and how to grow the program.

The awardees of the first Stevens Initiative grant competition are:

  • Chicago Sister Cities International
  • Eurasia Foundation
  • Global Nomads Group
  • iEARN-USA
  • National Democratic Institute
  • Soliya
  • State University of New York – Center for Collaborative Online International Learning
  • University of California – Berkeley
  • Wofford College
  • World Learning

An interesting sidebar is that Ambassador Stevens attended UC Berkeley, and its Center for Middle East Studies (CMES) administers the Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens Memorial Fund for Middle Eastern Studies to support UC Berkeley student travel and research in the Middle East and North Africa.

According to the Center, “The new CMES program will provide an opportunity for Berkeley undergraduates to interact with peers at institutions in rural Morocco and Saudi Arabia, with subsequent exchanges planned in Iraq and Jordan.”

CMES Chair Emily Gottreich pointed out that “Ambassador Stevens spent his undergraduate career studying history here at UC Berkeley before starting his service career in Morocco with the Peace Corps. We are honored to have been entrusted with the important work of continuing his legacy through these exchanges.”

The Stevens Institute is a collaboration among the Stevens family, the US Department of State, the Bezos Family Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Algeria, Morocco, Microsoft, Twitter, Mozilla, and GoPro.

When is a failed state not?

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

I have to believe that one of the least favorite jobs in Washington is being an author or contributor to one of the annual reports that make you a target of unhappy embassies. Whether it’s from the roll call of State Department publications, which includes Human Rights Reports, International Religious Freedom Reports, Trafficking-in-Person Reports, Advancing Freedom and Democracy Reports, or those from NGOs such as Reporters without Borders, Amnesty International, The Heritage Foundation, or any of the dozens of other national and international reports used by the Millennium Challenge Corporation in its selection criteria, being the messenger is no easy task.

Over the past decade, there is a special place of skepticism reserved for the annual Failed States Index (FSI) published by the Fund for Peace, now in its ninth year and increasingly detailed and sophisticated. The title is a bit misleading as the report is not a predictive tool of state failure but rather an assessment of more than 100 internal factors that affect a country’s stability. Of course, since the data is based on the calendar year, the first yellow flag is what has occurred following the six months it takes to prepare the report that could affect a country’s ranking. The natural inclination is to look at a country’s rating and then compare it to others, breathing a sigh of either relief or exasperation. But that’s not where the substance is, and those who take the time to read the key indicators grouped into 12 categories can benefit from the extraordinary analytical efforts the FSI involves.

What makes the FSI useful

Why am I a fan?  Because I believe that the real benefit of FSI is as a tool to facilitate discussion among a country’s stakeholders about its ambitions, core values, and means of delivering credible governance and equitable opportunities. It is less important to be chagrined that the 2012 rankings have France and Portugal in better shape than the US, and more important to drill down into the social and economic indicators (demographic pressures, group grievance, refugees and Internally Displaced Persons, human flight and brain drain, uneven economic development, poverty and economic decline) and political and military indicators (state legitimacy, public services, human rights and law, security apparatus, factionalized elites, and external intervention) to understand why.

In terms of methodology, the FSI relies on crunching tens of millions of pieces of information from around the world, which is then sorted into the 12 key indicators. “The content analysis is further triangulated with two other key aspects of the overall assessment process: quantitative analysis and qualitative inputs based on major events in the countries examined.” Final quality control is a review of the results and comparison with a “comprehensive set of vital statistics …as well as human analysis to ensure that the software has not misinterpreted the raw data.”

Lessons about state building

So what do we learn about state building from this year’s index? In the first instance, countries that work harder on capacity building over the long term are better able to withstand natural and man-made shocks that would drive weaker countries into crisis. It is a country’s ability to deliver a broad range of social services to greater numbers of its citizens while driving more equitable political participation that parallels the recommendations in the CFR report I mentioned last week.

Secondly, there are no magic bullets—not elections, not foreign assistance or intervention, nor increasing social benefits—that will reduce instability rooted in economic inequality, political marginalization, and degraded rule of law. Countries with large disparities in wealth, political access and influence, and public safety tend to be less stable than those that have fewer gaps (yes, Egypt was worse than Mali, but barely). In the section on the Arab Spring, it notes that the 2010 data “tells the story of a storm birthed in North Africa…indicators for Group Grievance and Human Rights were gradually and inexorably getting worse. In November 2010, there was a dramatic regional increase (not a good thing, the higher the score, the worse the ranking) in the State Legitimacy score…that has yet to come back down.”

Well, there may be a claim that this is all hindsight, and in fact the human analysis that is part of the process makes it inherently biased. Or one could take lessons from where the data and negative events have a high correlation, as in the example above, and draw analytical and policy lessons that increase our understanding of managing conflict before it become chaos or worse.

The FSI draws back the curtain on the complexities of state-building by enumerating the challenges, represented by the 100+ indicators that make up the profile of a country’s internal heartbeat. Rather than wait until the patient is in triage or functional failure, international donors and organizations can use this data and other sources to support dialogues with countries at risk to enable them to develop more robust strategies for reducing instability. Even isolated countries such as North Korea or far-away places like Somalia impact our lives. The FSI is a tool that helps us understand the caution flags that increasingly populate our mental maps of countries. It is this kind of solid data tied to the concurrence of values and interests that will enable policy makers and stakeholders to make the right choices.

Can Corporate Social Responsibility Aid Reform in the Maghreb?

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Rise of Corporate Social Responsibility – A Tool for Sustainable Development in the Middle East argues that companies can contribute to sustainable economic development in the MENA region through corporate social responsibility (CSR). The report was issued by Booz & Company’s Ideation Center, its “think tank in the Middle East [providing] thought leadership through insightful research, analysis, and dialogue that is true to the Middle East’s dynamics.”

The report raises several questions; some are existential, while others focus on distinguishing between short-term – “give him a fish” – approaches and long-term “teach him to fish” options. I have never been a great fan of CSR, simply because it is not, in my analysis, a substitute for investments in sustainable economic development that directly create jobs. This report takes a different tack, saying that “Companies, as good corporate citizens, must become involved in sustainable development and contribute to the broader improvement of their societies … [by aligning] themselves with these national goals [job creation, poverty alleviation, and the environment] that are built around sustainable development, using the powerful tool of CSR initiatives to help achieve them.” CSR, in their assessment, is both a social force for reducing economic inequality and a means of improving environmental conditions. Their case studies in the region are helpful yet do not address the core issue: can CSR have a long-term impact beyond philanthropy that supports greater opportunities for more equitable economic growth?

What is CSR?

Perhaps the first issue is definitional, as the United Nations Development Project (UNDP) defines sustainable development as “distributing the benefits of economic growth equitably, regenerating the environment rather than destroying it, and empowering people rather than marginalizing them.” Is this consistent with what the region is thinking? According to the Booz report, “Companies and government officials interviewed in our study most frequently cited the need for robust job creation to nurture economic growth and spread benefits among the population as the most salient issue.” This is the dilemma, as few of the examples provided in the report are about job creation. More are about philanthropy, which, while laudable, does not necessarily lead to enhancing job growth over the medium to long term.

I am not saying that CSR is not important. In fact it is a key component of a mature approach to economic growth; but it lacks a defined connection to job creation. As the report highlights, “half of the region’s population is under the age of 25…among those 14-24 years of age, approximately 25 percent lack a job…” So building homes for the poor, insisting on higher environmental standards for manufacturing facilities, and encouraging literacy are laudable, yet my assessment is that these programs must be part of a larger coherent CSR strategy that is wedded to generating meaningful employment if it is to go beyond alleviating short-term social and environmental issues.

And the challenges for recruiting partners into CSR programs can be quite daunting, as there are few if any incentives for employees to participate. Less than 14 percent of firms surveyed have formal CSR-related key performance indicators, “and just 11 percent include CSR performance in their bonus schemes.” So to make CSR effective over time, the report points to a process to close the gap between a company’s individual CSR programs and a country’s national development priorities.

Another challenge is that countries diverge in their CSR priorities, making it critical to define local needs rather than using an imported template. In the MENA, the focus is on issues ranging from alleviating poverty and supporting charities and community projects to education and employability. There is not a broad consciousness of the need to address environmental issues, which is a priority elsewhere. “Executives [in the MENA] are struggling to relate environmental issues to profitability and long-term business objectives.” In many cases, environmental concerns are still seen as external to the company rather than incorporated into its internal operations.

Building effective partners

The report also talks about the importance of proactive government and civil society participation and encouragement of CSR. On this theme, a very interesting CSR project is run by SEDCO Holding, a Saudi Sharia-compliant wealth management company. After a national survey indicated that young Saudis have few skills in managing their personal finances, SEDCO initiated a financial literacy program for university students. It is a private-public partnership that involves an international NGO, resulting in a great example of how CSR can make an economic impact beyond charity. Smarter consumers make smarter decisions and can transfer this knowledge into their own business practices. This is a forward-thinking project that benefits all of the stakeholders and provides best practices that can be emulated elsewhere.

A positive recent development noted in the report is the notion of corporate governance – responsible and accountable company leadership. “It was only within the last 10 years that an Arabic word for corporate governance, hawkamah, was coined.” In the transition from family-owned private firms to corporate-managed public entities, a company’s identity shifts beyond the personality of the founders to values expressed in their corporate mission. It is this redefinition of company identities that holds the most promise for the inclusion of CSR in a firm’s objectives.

Just as long as you don’t forget that the bottom line is profitability and job growth!

Morocco in a rising Africa: Expand opportunities, extend friendships

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Last week, the annual meetings of the African Development Bank (AfDB) were held in Marrakech, Morocco under the theme “The Structural Transformation of Africa.” It has been 29 years since Morocco last hosted the meeting and the event and its location demonstrate how few divides now exist between north and sub-Saharan Africa.

In the past, policy analysts and companies treated North Africa as part of the Middle East; to many, Africa began at South Africa, and extended upwards to Nigeria and Kenya, encompassing the largely English-speaking areas of the continent.

While that is still the dominant perspective, leaders in the Maghreb have increasingly forged closer and more robust economic, commercial, and political ties with their counterparts in central and West Africa.

Some of these efforts were clearly political, as with Gaddafi’s investments throughout the continent. Other ties have grown out of the need to have common efforts against smugglers, militants, terrorists, and extremists who populate the poorly guarded territories along common borders. The bottom line is that building long-term south-south relations is now a permanent feature of intra-African affairs.

In his message to the annual meetings, King Mohammed VI of Morocco emphasized that Africa’s human capacity and natural resources are great assets in the economic and social development that is occurring. He also noted that “we must root out the causes of national and regional conflicts so that peace may prevail throughout Africa.”

The King called for “major projects at the level of sub-regional groupings, and to insure the sustainability and optimal management of our resources, for the mutual benefit of our populations.” In outlining his vision, the King calls for Africans to take the leadership in the development of their countries without becoming dependent on foreign entities.

King Mohammed VI also spoke to the need “to ensure food security for all our African peoples and to reduce our dependence…through the creation of a common African agricultural market. Finally, we should promote support and assistance programs to reduce social and spatial inequalities and ensure inclusive, shared growth.”

These challenges echo themes of conferences held earlier this year in Morocco on south-south dynamics, most recently the 8th Morocco International Exhibition of Agriculture in Meknes, where attendees discussed topics related to regional markets, food security, and innovations in agriculture.

Yet the AfDB’s mission is built around the capabilities of its 79 members (54 African, 25 non-African) to not only grow their GDPs but put into practice the means of further reducing poverty, inequality, and discrimination. Despite a doubling of GDP since 2000, great disparities remain and there is an over-reliance on FDI to drive growth that is often uneven among and within countries.

As reported in the final communiqué of the meetings, there is a need to use the current UN discussions on revising the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) to set realistic goals regarding the inclusion of youth, women, and other vulnerable groups.

The final AfDB statement included a strong emphasis on committing higher levels of investment in human and infrastructure development, promoting strategies that accelerate economic growth including support to small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs), improving human capacity and skills development especially for youth, and renewed efforts to build efficient regional markets through joint public-private investments.

In his remarks at the closing session, Nizar Baraka, who was named “Minister of Finance of the Year” in Africa, pointed out that a key outcome of the meetings was to review, evaluate, and discuss AfDB’s activities to better develop strategies to mobilize financial resources for the structural transformation of Africa so as to better serve the African people and “meet their expectations for a dignified life, social mobility, and job opportunities.”

Morocco garnered additional awards including Best Bank of North Africa to Attijariwafa Bank and Best Development Financing Institution to Credit Agricole, which was cited for “working hard…to build a model of sustainable and efficient financing for development in rural areas, with good management practices.”

These institutions and their counterparts throughout Africa are key players in the fact that 13 of the 20 fastest growing countries in the world in 2012 are in Africa. In its third annual financial review, the AfDB noted that regional economic integration is the “key factor” for African producers to develop regional value chains, to achieve economies of scale, and become competitive internationally.

And for AfDB, the private sector is the main engine of growth and poverty alleviation, providing 90% of the jobs, two-thirds of the investments, and 70% of the earnings growth on the continent.

Morocco and the rest of the Maghreb will gain mutual benefits from a heightened involvement in Africa, one that shares a common vision for dynamic human and economic growth.

Global business in emerging markets: Transformational partnerships

/in , , , , , , , , /by

At a recent corporate presentation in the Maghreb on the potential transformational effect of foreign direct investment (FDI), I focused on two points: the notion of impact investing and the corollary dynamic of how FDI impacts human development beyond the benefits of economic growth.

The discussants were company leaders and employees discussing how to build a globally competitive company culture integrating local sensibilities and priorities with technologies and industrial know-how developed abroad.  The initial discussions, following the usual pattern of strategic planning sessions, concentrated on building a common vision and purpose among the participants. The vision that coalesced was then defined in a series of core values and principles that would become the “brand” of the emerging company culture.

As I listened to insightful and well-presented points of view, it became apparent that as the new company drills down from values and principles to behaviors, it is critical that both sides examine the scope of their assumptions and expectations. While there was a strong consensus around the vision and principles, agreement was not so clear on the behaviors that would then follow. It reminded me of the iceberg metaphor in cross-cultural communications, where the core values, principles, attitudes, and beliefs are unseen below the waterline, while the behaviors, which are visible above the surface, are subject to interpretation by the other party who cannot see below the waterline. The lesson: we make judgments about others based on what we see, rather than what we know lies beneath the surface.

Given this observation, I asked the group to consider a broader perspective, moving above their particular iceberg to consider the implications of the new partnership beyond the terms of the company’s goals and objectives. I began with what I know best—defining the mission of the new company and how training impacts its brand.

The Arab uprisings pointed out the need for rapid economic growth to stimulate broad and meaningful employment and drive education relevant to the marketplace. This is not a simple task; it is not merely about providing skills training to enhance work opportunities; it is about the core aspirations of people and what this means to their country. Employees and employers are not the only beneficiaries of FDI; all of the country benefits from a more capable and effective workforce.  The workforce that is emerging will have better technical capabilities, operational sensibilities, and soft skills that enable them to define options and make choices about their futures.

In the MENA countries that I have surveyed in terms of technical and vocational training needs, soft skills are defined as more than communications and teamwork; they include the capabilities to pursue a career and anticipate and grasp needed learning opportunities. This involves creativity, innovation, and judgment. Thus, these enhanced soft skills are more complex and encourage what is called “global dexterity,” blending awareness and knowledge that lead to effective behaviors in the workplace while securing one’s core values.

The Arab uprisings remind us that there is a related issue that needs attention: that what we are dealing with is more than better training, education, and employment; Arabs are redefining the social contract that existed between regimes and their people. At the heart of it all are the issues of identity and the basis of legitimacy of the governments: political, religious, ethnic, cultural, etc.

Historically, the social contract was an exchange between a government that provided order, stability, and a bit of prosperity to citizens who felt protected and secure enough to have sustainable livelihoods.  That balance has, in many countries, been shaken to a large degree by demographics, the global economy, technology, more gender equality, a reduction in social distance, and education, which are providing the ingredients and tools for reshaping and recalibrating social contracts. So it is this redefining of the social contract that is at the heart of the struggle for political legitimacy and national identity.

In this context, skills training and professional development enable employees to access careers and benefits that equip them to be part of a generational and transformational shift. These empowered employees become capable participants with tools to achieve aspirations for themselves, their families, and their children. This confluence of skills and knowledge has the capacity to impact the debate on the social contract, which has implications for the MENA region. This may sound a bit grandiose, but it is a historical lesson that economic development and human development go hand in hand. What was once considered a business relationship has the potential, in today’s highly connected and able public space, to be a link between global markets and local human development.

By raising the performance of employees to better engage the global economy, we build a platform for moving beyond issues of economic growth as both employees and employers seek growth opportunities that require more effective governance and use of human capital. People become internal change agents that provide the role models, mentors, and early adaptors missing from the broad business landscape in the MENA countries. These local transformation agents link with others throughout the region and larger markets to promote global dexterity – adaptive behaviors built around core values.

And what is the external partner’s role in this? The concept is “impact investing,” which focuses on projects that have social and environmental benefits and generate profits. At its core, impact investing reflects business models that are sustainable, advance human capital, provide opportunities for community development, and have results that are attractive to long term relationships with the private sector. The key consideration is to move beyond social and community outreach that is beneficial in the short-term but does not significantly alter the future prospects of the communities touched. By promoting an investment perspective that recognizes that broader and deeper FDI requires long-term returns, countries and companies make mutual cause for mutual benefit. Governments have their role to play but no more than is usually needed to attract serious FDI, ranging from needed infrastructure to incentives for training, use of local materials, and similar inputs.

There are several revolutions going on in the MENA and elsewhere, some messy and unwieldy while others are barely perceptible. The role of workforce development in crafting solutions should not be overlooked or minimized as simply giving people jobs. Companies exist for a purpose, to be profitable and grow. Employees share these goals, to profit from their employment by acquiring skills that free them to know and exploit opportunities for themselves and their families. Partnerships between local and international private sectors that are emerging will, in many respects, help governments in their mission to build a new social contract with their citizens by greatly reducing demands for counterproductive government intervention in the economy. Good business making better jobs and great citizens and governments is a goal worth pursuing.

From winning to working: challenges of moving beyond the Arab uprisings

/in , , , , , , /by

I must admit that sometimes I am a bit confused by how some very good people frame their analyses of MENA issues. A recent case in point is a blog by Frederic Hof, one of my favorite writers on the Levant. He writes that the major question for the Arabs is “what will follow the Ottoman system as the true source of political legitimacy? The emerging answer is that for governments to be legitimate, they must ultimately derive their powers from the consent of the governed. This, in my view, is the meaning of the Arab Spring.”

Well, historical antecedents aside…that is a useful, as yet un-validated, position. He goes on to write, “Since the downfall of the four hundred-year empire only ninety years ago, Arabs have struggled to find the location of the stabilizing political legitimacy that once resided in the system of the Sultan-Caliph. Legitimacy has nothing to do with whether people approve or disapprove of the performance of a particular leader or government. It has everything to do with the right of a government to govern, whether it does so well or poorly. It is the system that is important; not the person.”

To speak of the Ottoman system or any of its predecessors as having the “right” to govern the Arab lands any more than other colonial powers turns history a bit on its head. However, his point that “it is the system that is important” is a hypothesis worth testing under the current tempest of transitions in the MENA region.

Perhaps the first consideration is where political legitimacy resides. Since the only clear example of retained legitimacy in North Africa after the Arab uprisings is Morocco, which was not ruled by the Ottomans and certainly did not cede legitimacy to the French and Spanish occupations, the legitimacy question is more applicable to Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. None of these countries yet has a constitution as the basis for governing, and so the jury is still out on the “system” of governance. In the contestation between Islamic parties and their “secular” counterparts, it is unclear where the mantle of leadership will be awarded by “the consent of the governed.” Those who are not fans of the Islamic government in Egypt should as well be concerned about the “tyranny of the majority” from the left or the right.

In a recent Viewpoints paper produced by the Wilson Center, Marina Ottaway analyzes the steps secular parties can take to be more competitive in Tunisia and Egypt. Her central theme is that “the secular opposition…has been unable to develop a clear message, build viable political parties, or overcome its fragmentation.” It is a telling assessment when combined with a recent remark by an Arab head of state visiting Washington, DC, who said that “there is no Arabic or Hebrew word for strategy,” focusing on the need for Arab countries to consult more seriously on complex issues such as Syria and the peace process.

While it may be that political leadership in these countries is still in flux, the bottom line, according to Ottaway is, “The transitions that started with the 2011 uprisings will not lead to a democratic outcome unless a better balance is established between Islamist and secular forces…The real issue is that democracy does not depend on the behavior of one party or faction, but on a pluralistic and balanced political spectrum. And that balance must be established in the electoral arena.” [emphasis added] And here is the challenge of history: How do societies wherein political, religious, ethnic, and socio-economic differences have been exploited for generations regard others as fellow seekers for justice and equality? How do elections, which historically have been engineered to satisfy narrowly defined constituencies, all at once become an expression of the will of the people, of “the consent of the governed?” How do issues of emerging political identities avoid being strapped with religious or personality-driven labels that stereotype their agendas before they are subject to the realities of the political marketplace of negotiation?

Ottaway offers several prescriptions to secular parties on how to capture the high ground in the political landscape: develop a clear message; develop an organization; and unite their leadership. She points out that the Islamic parties in Egypt and Tunisia have yet to articulate clear economic platforms that define their actions for governing. The secular parties “have also failed so far to suggest their own remedies in a way designed to gain broad support.” Let me suggest that perhaps this is an area where the Morocco experience may be helpful. The government’s economic plans are well articulated and targeted but have foundered in winning Parliamentary approval. At least the people know what they voted for, even if it has not yet been delivered.

Ottoway believes that the lack of cohesive secular political parties reflects, in many ways, the “social distance that separates the secular leadership from much of the population.” Again, when I look at Morocco, where the PJD and Istiqlal parties have maintained solid support among their members, they stand in contrast to less cohesive parties elsewhere. As Ottaway remarks, “….they need to decide that the non-glamorous task of building machines is worth the effort and they do not appear to have done so thus far.” This is a lesson across the Maghreb where public patience should not be taken for granted.

Finally, there is the issue of leadership, where “Individuals who in theory share the same ideals of a democratic country that protects human rights and individual freedoms, respects diversity, and takes its place among modern nations are showing little inclination to work together for the common goal.” It is counterintuitive for politicians, who seek the limelight to illuminate their positions, to defer to others and trust in coalition-building in which they are not prominently featured. Many people in the region have long lamented the lack of an Arab Nelson Mandela, but hand-wringing does not enlarge the capacity for thoughtful and effective leadership in the region.

As the Arab peoples embark on perhaps their first realistic opportunity in modern times to own their political legitimacy, the first step may be to actually build a consensus of the governed rather than proclaiming their differences.

Thinking more, seeing more, doing more…effectively

/in /by

BUILDING EFFECTIVE PARADIGMS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATIONS

In working at the nexus of policy and practice, one encounters words that seem to imply change, but in fact are sometimes merely ways to restate perceptions without challenging one’s hard-earned point of view. One such overused expression is “paradigm shift,” which implies learning and changing but oftentimes substitutes an excess of intellectual movement for testing ideas in real life situations.

The word “paradigm” comes from Greek roots meaning pattern, model, or standard. A paradigm describes images certain groups derive about others from observing events, activities, and behaviors. A related word is “stereotype”, defined as a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group. So one can say that a paradigm is a kind of a stereotype because it is a model of what is or should be that is held in common by a group, whether they are policy makers, business executives, or an ethnic group. The final member of this interesting trinity is “assumption,” something taken for granted, which feeds the perceptions or value judgments incorporated in our view of the world.

If we are to determine what we can do better, we need to understand how policies, paradigms, assumptions, and stereotypes interact to generate priorities, rules, and perceptions that define our relations with other countries, customers, suppliers, employees, and competitors.

Let’s begin with a simple schematic that links the elements conceptually:

 

 

It is my proposition that there is a reinforcing tendency in both government and the corporate world to view policy making as the outcome of exercising certain paradigms when confronting challenges or obstacles to attaining desired policy goals. These paradigms define policy options and the “rules of the game” under which policies are to be implemented.

Policies are defined, crudely or precisely, and directed at/communicated to several key audiences: domestic constituencies (shareholders), the general international community (industry and media), and specific international targets (stakeholders, competitors, potential merger partners, etc.) that are essential respondents if the policy outcomes are to be achieved. The success of the policy and the clarity of its message are reflected in the short, medium, and long-term results that occur.

If the results are as anticipated, then the policy has been successful. We celebrate a triumph over evil, or an end to violence or the threat of violence; the completion of a particularly difficult negotiation, or whatever else was on the agenda. However, when the results go sour, or are not fully realized, then the paradigm needs to be reworked, so we will get it right! This is a hallmark of US policy-making and management practice, and has served us well, sometimes. This paper addresses the “other” times, when a mere reworking of the paradigm isn’t sufficient.

Little attention is paid, particularly in periods of crisis, to the roots of ruling paradigms. We ignore the basis of the widely-accepted assumptions (based on values) and stereotypes (based on interpretive perceptions) that may reflect obsolete or poorly-defined assessments of the world as we see it or as we believe others do. As a prime example, we will not master the lessons of September 11 without a continuing effort to understand the nature of the terrorism of that day, its genesis, and its siblings that have since proliferated around the world.

What We Need to Know

The security of the global order has changed dramatically since September 11, and it is even more imperative to understand the implications of the new rules of engagement between the U.S. and the world, which began with “You’re with us or against us.” What does this mean, practically?

Better Answers and the Way Forward

Answering this question requires a reassessment of corporate and government paradigms that drive policies internally and externally. Unless we take a hard look at those paradigms, we will continue to support policies that do not deliver the results we want, and ultimately weaken our capabilities to achieve our mission critical goals.

On the macro-level, polling results in the U.S. indicate that there is a continuing concern about what lies ahead in terms of our country’s security. This brings us back to the central point of contention: is there a clash of values, policies, or personalities at the basis of the perceptions of the U.S. in the Arab world and elsewhere?

Two points are important in answering this. First of all, results of polls globally and specifically in several Arab and Islamic countries indicate that there is a consistent perception of the U.S. as arrogant, insensitive, and unwilling to respect or consult with other countries and cultures. Secondly, the erosion of the perception of the U.S. as a moral leader significantly undercuts our ability to support liberalizing forces in Arab countries that become tainted from any association with us. If the Arab uprisings spoke to any single value, it is the need for integrity in relations between governments and peoples. In our support of autocratic regimes or our lack of support for credible reform movements, we have shown the hollowness of American “exceptionalism.”

Therefore, if U.S. policies are based on paradigms that assume America’s military or political leadership in the world is based on our superior cultural values, and, if the U.S. has not achieved the results the policies were designed to reach, then it’s critical to rethink the assumptions and stereotypes that generated that paradigm in the first place.

At the core of US policy toward the Middle East are stereotypes about Arabs, Muslims and others that strike people in that region as suspiciously patronizing if not derogatory. Perhaps if there were no access to satellite broadcasts, print media, new media, and higher education, these stereotypes would be less obvious. As it is, until we rethink our perceptions of the Middle East—as well as those of Latin America and most of the rest of the emerging markets—U.S. foreign policy will continue to miss its mark in terms of achieving outcomes needed to achieve global stability, security, and prosperity because it is based on flawed paradigms. And this is equally true of the new rules of the game, globalization, and the World Trade Organization.

Better Paradigms, Better Results

The war of competing paradigms is essentially a broad failure to communicate – pitting the fiats (political decrees) proclaimed by the West regarding democracy and globalization against the fatwas (religious decrees) issued by often extremist Muslims on the same subjects. The overwhelming tragedy is that people in all of these countries universally share the goals of security, prosperity, and stability. The failure is the inability of the parties to achieve these commonly valued results without sacrifices that they are not prepared to make or accept.

If we are to achieve better results through more appropriate/apt paradigms, then we need to accept that in some countries, at this point in time, democracy and human rights are a luxury or a means to an end, not a value in and of themselves; and that will not change soon. We need to rethink how our paradigms incorporate assumptions and stereotypes that don’t accurately reflect reality and as a result fail to serve our long-term goals either internally or in our foreign policy. If we aspire to rekindle America’s world leadership, there can be no better vehicle to demonstrate our seriousness than a conscious effort to regularly assess and reaffirm American principles and practices towards our citizens and our neighbors.

Just as we are obligated to renew and refresh our perspectives as Americans, we should extend this process, through a nuanced and appropriate methodology, to other countries with whom we agree and disagree. It is not much different that the process that multinational companies are engaged in every day, negotiating the parameters for building long-term business relationships with host countries, labor organizations, communities, and interest groups.

Yet without listening, how will we hear their voices and how will we hear our own reactions and impulses to the changes and challenges that fill our daily lives? Paradigms exist as a means for coping with a world that often seems beyond an individual’s capacity for comprehension by organizing disparate and foreign impressions into a tangible, consistent model. Appreciating these limitations and exercising our best judgment in clarifying the assumptions and stereotypes that define these paradigms is the enduring hallmark of leadership.