A collective exhale radiated from Munich last Friday as U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis confirmed President Trump’s confidence in NATO’s role in facilitating security alliances in Europe. While tempered with expectations for NATO to contribute more financially, and “to adapt to today’s strategic situation,” the Secretary was clear: the US remains a committed NATO partner. Those who have worked in NATO know that the relationship is more nuanced. Enter cross-cultural relations, the adhesive that binds the efforts of multi-national defense forces together.
CULTURAL FLUENCY: THE UNSPOKEN DEAL-BREAKER
While assigned to a NATO unit in the Netherlands, I watched our U.S. senior officer struggle to connect with his Dutch counterpart. My Dutch coworkers offered advice: join the group for morning coffee, an informal gathering where the Dutch colonel often shared information from headquarters and learned from our team what issues needed his attention. In truth, it was also a social start to the day that built camaraderie. Resisting his urge to go straight to his desk and get after his morning emails, my boss dropped in for coffee – a leisurely affair by a US military officer’s standards. When the mysteries began to unfold, he saw the forum’s value. It also provoked us consider how some of our behaviors from our US military culture could derail synergy among the NATO team.
INTEGRATING WITH MULTI-NATIONAL TEAMS
A proven approach to adapting in multi-national environments is to view a culture through its own lens. Geert Hofstede – considered by many the MacDaddy of cross-cultural fluency – developed factors, or cultural dimensions, that measure attributes of cultures, both national and organizational. Fuller details of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are in his book, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Hofstede’s model can be applied to better understand the NATO culture.
CULTURAL ATTRIBUTES of NATO
One who has worked in NATO – or simply read the NATO Handbook – might make the following observations about NATO’s culture in comparison to most US defense cultures:
- While NATO has a clear chain of command, its power is distributed more laterally than in most US defense organizations. It would be unrealistic to expect a group of multiple partners to have the same power structure as one comprised of a single nation.
- NATO members make decisions collectively. One of NATO’s political purposes is encouraging consultation, where partners express respective equities before reaching consensus. In US organizations, stakeholders often provide input in a linear fashion before leaders ultimately make decisions.
- NATO organizations have a high tolerance for uncertainty. NATO partners accept that not all problems have immediate solutions, and are comfortable working in ambiguous conditions. In US military cultures, ambiguity is acknowledged as inevitable, but timely decisiveness is usually a stronger indicator of success.
- NATO members take a longer view of the overall security landscape in Europe. Three decades of security cooperation with post-Cold War partners demonstrate the pay-off of long-term investments in regional stability. US organizations are often evaluated based on how quickly they disengage from an area of operations.
Through the NATO lens, what might seem less than optimally functional by US standards is likely right for NATO. US defense professionals can more effectively represent their organizations through adaptation, integration, and understanding of NATO’s culture.
