Performance, Safety and Well-being in Aviation

Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the

European Association for Aviation Psychology

20-24 September 2010, Budapest, Hungary

1st Edition

The 29th EAAP conference was organised in cooperation with

EUROCONTROL CRDS

European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation,

Centre for Research and Development, Hungary

2 
 
Sponsors

We wish to thank the following for their contribution to the success of this conference:

European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, Air Force Office of

Scientific Research, United States Air Force Research Laboratory

DLR – German Aerospace Center,

Aviation and Space Psychology

HOGREFE Austria

ASHGATE Publishing UK

Scientific Committee

Peter Jorna, President of EAAP

Monica Martinussen

André Droog

Hinnerk Eiβfeldt

Veerle Tibax

Ruth Häusler

Harald Kolrep

ISBN: 978-90-815253-2-9

Edited by

André Droog and Michaela Heese

3 
 
 P21 Cultural Intelligence, Diversity and Management
Implications for the Aviation Industry

T. C. D’Oliveira*

Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada – Instituto Universitário, Lisbon, Portugal

*Corresponding author. E-mail: Teresa.Oliveira@ispa.pt

Introduction

Diversity and Diversity Management

Diversity and its management have been considered one of the challenges for the new millennium.
Cox (1991) argued that the way organizations have considered diversity reflects the societal
dominating views on the topic and the increasing body of evidence on performance effects. Three
types of diversity management have been identified in the literature. In the monolithic organization, a
majority group, usually the white male group dominates organizational decisions and all remaining
minority groups are expected to adapt to the prevailing norms and culture. With the plural organization,
the dominating model of today according to Diezt and Petersen (2006), a concern regarding the
inclusion of minorities exists and is usually associated with recruitment and hiring practices,
compensation systems and training. In the multicultural model, minority groups are valued contributors
to the organization and its fullest potential can only achieved through formal and informal integration in
the organization (Kandola & Fullerton, 1998). One can therefore say that monolithic organizations are
associated with assimilation practices, plural organizations with inclusion initiatives and multicultural
organizations with pluralism.

Although diversity management is currently associated with superior organizational performance (e.g.,
Cox & Blake, 1991) the definition of concept at its centre is not without controversies. The most
comprehensive framework of diversity is presented by Gardenswartz and Rowe (2009) (Figure 1).
Making using of an onion metaphor, the authors consider that four layers of diversity can be identified.
A basic and central layer is personality highlighting the potential behavioral manifestations that may
result from personality traits and behavioral styles. A second layer of diversity is associated with
internal characteristics such as gender, age, race or ethnicity. According to the authors, such
characteristics do not reflect personal choices but represent “internal dimensions” that influence our
and others expectations on behavior, roles we play and the way we are treated in the work context.
Attributes that reflect our choices and experiences are grouped as “external dimensions” involving
characteristics such as religion, recreational habits, educational background, work experience,
appearance, among others. A final layer of diversity is associated with the organizational context
involving the job or position held, seniority, or our status at work.
An iceberg metaphor can be used to represent the visibility of these layers. Characteristics such as
gender, race, or physical ability are quite visible while religion, education, work experience and the
values and beliefs associated with have a deeper and not always visible nature.
Eckert (2010) argues that it is the context that determines which particular characteristic will become
salient.

444 
 
 Figure 1. The layers of diversity (in Gardenswartz and Rowe, 1998, 2009)

Eckert (2010) considers that the concept of diversity is often misleading in the sense that typically
involves a direct association with race. The author argues that diversity simply means difference or
variation regardless of its origin. What one is interested are not the characteristics themselves but their
influence on behavior, attitudes, beliefs and for that reason Eckert (2010) proposes that the concept of
culture should be adopted as it better captures the variation or differences of interest.
In a similar perspective Earley, Ang and Tan (2006) consider that the patterned ways of thinking,
feeling and reactions to various situations and actions can best be thought of as culture ; managing
diversity will involve managing cultural differences regardless of what is at the origin of those
differences. Turney and Maxant (2004) also expand the diversity concept and consider the cultural
manifestations that result from differences in nationality, race, and ethnic origin among others. In this
perspective managing diversity would also be associated with the management of cultural differences.

Cultural diversity is therefore associated with the potential of bringing new perspectives, ideas,
knowledge to the organization and their management associated with superior performance (Cox and
Blake, 1991, Gardenswartz and Rowe, 2009). The competitive advantages of such perspective
support its implementation something that can be analyses at the macro level (i.e., the industry as a
whole), at the meso level (i.e., the organizational practices adopted) and at the micro level (i.e., the
individual characteristics and processes associated with cultural differences)

Results and Discussion

Implications for the aviation industry

The concept of globalization encapsulates dramatic shifts in economics, politics and technology
growing interconnections of economies and business (Thomas, 2008). Organizations, in general, had
to develop new ways to organize themselves to respond to the change appeals and to the increasing
complexities of the new millennium. Growing economic interconnectedness, the use of information
technology, international migration and multicultural workplaces illustrate the greater complexity and
dynamism of globalized economy. In this context, increased cultural diversity became a central
characteristic and its management a necessity.
As an industry, aviation was not immune to the globalization and some features illustrate its processes
and characteristics. If one considers that aviation is a highly regulated environment, one has to
conclude that the interconnectedness of activities contributed to greater integration/unity worldwide. As
445 
 
a globalized industry, aviation was also forced to consider cultural diversity namely in terms of its
clients. Embracing clients’ cultural diversity quickly became, and still is, a competitive advantage to
most airlines. Finally, the expanding nature of the industry faced the personnel shortages and
multinational workforces became a recurrent organizational facet. If diversity and its management can
be considered central in this globalized industry, questions remain regarding the type of cultural
organization that is prevalent today and evidences of true multiculturalism are needed. In many cases
the industry reveals a concern with inclusion of different cultural groups but fails to truly benefit from its
fullest potential.

Implications for aviation’s practices

Multiculturalism can only be achieved through organizational processes and groups relations designed
and implemented in a way that maintain and preserve diversity and that ultimately challenge the highly
prescriptive nature of the industry.
Turney and Maxant (2004) consider that “no comprehensive solution to the problems of cultural
diversity in the context of the aviation industry has been conceived (p.4). At the same time, our
existence, development and growth are culturally determined and molded and therefore no activity
(i.e., training, safety, design and research) is culture free.
Accident investigations and health and safety concerns identified interpersonal relations as a key area
and training initiatives like CRM or CISM were developed in order strengthen the safety system and
create greater organizational resilience. Central to all these activities is the acknowledgement of
cultural diversity and its influence on our thoughts, feelings and reactions. The industry appears to
face a paradox, a cultural paradox as it recognizes the existence, the magnitude and the influence of
cultural diversity but lacks true integration it in its activities. Cultural factors are highlighted in CRM
activities but expected behaviors and attitudes are truly uniformed (e.g. Helmreich and Merritt,
1997).CRM and LOFT activities may raise awareness to cultural diversity but specific interventions
have to be design in order to fully integrate and value cultural differences.

Implications for aviation’s members

Cross-cultural research conducted on multinational companies (e.g., Hofstede with IBM), multinational
industries (e.g., Helmreich and Merrit with the aviation industries) or the leadership prototypes of the
GLOBE project (e.g., Rego and Cunha, 2009) have showed that diversity layers such as nationality,
ethnic background among others influence expectations and behaviors that we have of ourselves and
of others.
The adaptive capacities to function effectively in culturally diverse contexts are associated with a
specific type of intelligence: cultural intelligence CQ (i.e., Van Dyne, Ang and Koh, 2009, Triandis,
2006). Van Dyne, Ang and Koh (2009) consider that CQ is relevant not only for those with international
responsibilities but also to those in culturally diverse domestic settings. Plum (2008) goes even further
and contends that the cultural dynamics in place when national differences are considered are the
same that take place in professional or organizational contexts, a perspective that parallels
Gardenswartz and Rowe’s (2009) approach to cultural diversity.
Two distinct approaches to CQ can be identified in the literature, one associated with the work of
Thomas et al (e.g., Thomas, 2006; Thomas et al, 2008) and the other associated with the work
presented by Earley and colleagues (e.g., Earley, 2002, Earley and Ang, 2003). In spite of this, an
overlapping model of CQ emerges that considers three main dimensions (Thomas et al, 2008) A
cognitive component refers to the knowledge one has of other cultures and the comprehension and
decoding of our behavior and the behavior of others. Thomas (2006) also considers that CQ involves
the ability to extrapolate cultural knowledge to generate new behaviors. An emotional/motivational
element is associated with the motives that direct our attention and energy in culturally diverse settings
and that reflect what one wants or prefer (Thomas, 2006; Van Dyne, Ang and Koh, 2008). Finally, CQ
involves a repertoire of behaviors that are appropriate to diverse cultural settings or when interacting
with people from different cultural backgrounds (Thomas, 2006; Van Dyne, Ang and Koh, 2008). The
motivational component associated with cultural diversity has traditionally been emphasized in
aviation’s recruitment and hiring practices. One of the advantages of working in the aviation industry is
usually the possibility of travelling and discovering new countries and cultures. However, very few
organizations actually consider the cognitive component of CQ, that is, the ability to comprehend and
decode cultural manifestations of others and generate new cultural expressions that accommodate it.
In this regard, Turney and Maxant (2004) argue that cultural training and study is essential to mitigate
potential conflict and create genuine international companies.

446 
 
References

Cox, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 34-47.

Cox, T. H. and Blake, B. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational
competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45-56.
Dietz, J. and Petersen, L. . (2006). Diversity management. In Stahl and I. Bjorkman (Eds.). Handbook
of Research in International Human Resource Management (pp. 223-243). Cheltenhan, UK:
Edward Ellgar.
Earley, P. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving forward with
cultural intelligence. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 271-299.
Earley, P. and Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Earley, P. ; Ang, S. and Tan, J. S.(2006). CQ, Developing cultural intelligence at work. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Eckert, S. (2010). Forget diversity; instead consider the concept of cross-cultural intelligence.
Available online www.workplacespirituality.info/ForgetDiversity.html Downloaded on 18
February 2010.
Gardenswartz, L. and Rowe, A. (1998). Managing diversity: A complete desk reference and planning
guide. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gardenswartz, L. and Rowe, A. (2009). The effective management of cultural diversity. In M. A.
Moodian (Ed.). Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence: exploring the cross-
cultural dynamics within organizations (pp. 35-43). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.
Kandola, R. S. and Fullerton, J. (1998). Diversity in action: managing the mosaic. 2nd Edition. London,
UK: Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development.
Nkomo, S. and Cox, T (1996). Diverse identities in organizations. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord.
Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 338-356). London: Sage.
Plum, E. (2008). CI Cultural Intelligence: The art of leading cultural complexity. London, UK: Middlesex
University Press.
Rego, A. and Cunha, M. P. (2009). Manual de Gestão Transcultural de Recursos Humanos. Lisboa:
RH.
Thomas, D.; Elron. E.; Stahl, G.; Ekelund, B.; Ravlin, E.; Cerdin, J.; Poelmans, S.; Brillin, R.; Pekerti,
A.; Aycan, Z.; Maznevski, M.; Au, K. and Lazarova, M. (2008). Cultural Intelligence: Domain and
assessment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8, 123-143.
Thomas, D.C. (2006). Domain and development of cultural intelligence: The importance of
mindfulness. Group & Organization Management, 31, 78-99.
Thomas, D.C. (2008). Cross-cultural management, essential concepts. Los Angeles, USA: Sage.
Triandis, H. C. (2006). Cultural intelligence in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31,
20-26.
Turney, M. A. and Maxant, R. F. (2004). Tapping diverse talent: A must for the new century. In. M. A.
Turney (Ed.) Tapping diverse talent in aviation: Culture, gender and diversity (pp. 3-10).
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Van Dyne, L.; Ang, S. & Koh, C. (2009). Cultural Intelligence: Measurement and scale development. In
M.A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence: Exploring the
cross-cultural dynamics within organizations (pp. 233-254). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Van Dyne, L; Ang, S. and Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS: The cultural
intelligence scale. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.) Handbook of Cultural intelligence: Theory,
measurement and application. (pp.16-38). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

447