What Is CQ Knowledge?
CQ Knowledge refers to our understanding about cross-cultural issues and differences. While this understanding includes the kinds of things done in many short-term orientation meetings, it’s also more than just learning about the history and details of a particular culture. The most important part of CQ Knowledge is gaining a general understanding about how cultures vary. How does culture affect the way people view the world? How does that relate to the specific culture we’re about to visit? How does it explain our own behavior? What’s behind the common gestures used? These are the type of questions a person with high CQ Knowledge asks and understands. Growing in CQ Knowledge requires more than simply reading the Lonely Planet Guide for the country we’re about to visit; it involves an ongoing process of looking at cultures and beginning to understand how they vary.
Cultural understanding begins with understanding what culture is in the first place. Anthropologists and sociologists have argued for years about how to define culture, but most agree that culture is the collective beliefs people hold about how things should be and how one should behave. It’s a way of looking at the values, attitudes, and beliefs shared by a common group of people. While things such as food, art, and literature give us visible expressions of culture, one of the greatest challenges that comes with understanding culture is that cultural knowledge is largely invisible. So when we talk about serving with eyes wide open, the vision we’re trying to enhance is the ability to see what isn’t immediately visible to the physical eye. It’s looking beyond the driving habits, diet, and architecture to see what lies beneath those things. That’s what CQ Knowledge allows us to do.
Think of culture as the software that runs our minds. It’s the mental programming that shapes our habits, beliefs, decision making, and the way we see the world.[104] This programming is passed along from generation to generation. Cultural programming applies to national and ethnic groups, to organizations (such as the culture of a particular company or church), and even to subcultural groups such as adolescents, political parties, or evangelicals. While CQ Knowledge can enhance interactions in any of these cultural groups, our interest is primarily in national culture—the socioethnic cultures of people living in the communities we’re visiting on our short-term trips.
An easy way to see how culture programs our minds is to look at the views people from different cultures have of dogs. My daughter Emily loves dogs. She always has. She stops to pet every one of them and volunteers at our local vet’s. If she had her way, our home would be filled with dogs. Emily, like many Westerners, sees dogs not as mere animals but as members of the family. Even those of us who aren’t dog lovers think of dogs as belonging in people’s homes and yards, not as animals that should be left to roam wild on their own. In North America, dogs eat with us, watch TV with us, and go on vacation with us. It’s becoming more and more common in suburbs around the US to find boutiques devoted exclusively to dogs. In contrast, many people living in Islamic cultures view dogs as animals to be avoided at all costs. They see dogs like the typical North American sees rats or pigs. In their minds, dogs are dirty animals that are primarily a nuisance. In still other parts of the world, dogs are considered an exotic delicacy, served to the most honored guests.
Which is the “right” view of dogs? This is the kind of instance when we can be tempted to misuse the Bible. North American dog lovers might find a verse that proves their view of dogs. Certainly, there are values (and verses) that direct how we should treat all animals, including dogs. But we’re hard-pressed to make a biblical case for or against any of these cultural differences in how people view dogs. That may seem wrong to you, because our view of dogs is so ingrained in us through the mental programming of our culture.
CQ Knowledge helps us move beyond seeing the stray dogs roaming throughout Indonesia as simply neglected pets to consider how Indonesians’ interactions with dogs reflect their cultural values and assumptions. Applying CQ Knowledge becomes more challenging when dealing with issues such as how a culture views polygamy or literacy or the Bible, but it’s even more important with these weightier issues.
CQ Knowledge is essential because it’s at the core of serving with eyes wide open. CQ Knowledge gives us a healthy starting point for more effectively engaging in short-term missions. Many of the pitfalls of short-term missions could be avoided with CQ Knowledge. But the point is not to master CQ Knowledge before we take off on our next trip. We continue to grow in CQ Knowledge throughout our lifetime. Here are a few ways to begin improving our CQ Knowledge.
Nurturing CQ Knowledge
If we’re going to Mexico, reading about some basic habits of Mexican people is a good starting point. In order to truly nurture our CQ Knowledge, however, we need to go beyond that. We need to look at a broader perspective of cultural understanding by exploring some key categories of cross-cultural difference. CQ Knowledge is mostly about understanding some primary ways cultures differ according to what people in those cultures value. We have to beware of carelessly applying these values to everyone from a culture, but understanding these values is a helpful way to begin. To nurture our CQ Knowledge, we need to look at five dimensions that are commonly used to understand and measure cultural differences: time, context, individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. Many more than these exist, but these are some of the most important ones for nurturing CQ Knowledge, particularly for short-term missions trips.
Event Time versus Clock Time
Most of us are pretty familiar with the way people from different cultures view time. We can easily think of cultures in which people are routinely punctual and those in which people are chronically “late.” We can’t stereotype people too quickly, but this kind of understanding is precisely what we’re after in developing CQ Knowledge.
In his book A Geography of Time, Robert Levine explores the role of industrialization in how a culture views time.[105] According to Levine, industrialization promotes an ethos of producing and consuming. As a result, people in those cultures live by “clock time.” Punctuality and efficiency rule the day. A great deal of what we considered as part of the urgency issue in part 2 is an expression of our clock-time orientation. The clock is what determines when things start and end. Respect, excellence, and conscientiousness are communicated by our punctuality.
In contrast, less-industrialized cultures are far more interested in the priority and obligation of social relationships. Levine refers to these cultures as “event-time” cultures. Events begin and end when all the participants feel the time is right rather than what the clock says. Spontaneity is a core value among these people. A South American talked about the birthday party he threw for his son while they were living in the United States. They invited friends from the US and friends from Latin America. The invitation said the party would be from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. The friends from the US showed up at 2:00 and left around 4:00. In contrast, several of the Latinos came thirty to ninety minutes late and stayed well past 4:00 p.m. Some of them remained until 2:00 the next morning. One Argentinean friend asked the father why the invitation listed an ending time. He was offended by the implication that there was a time limit on how long they could be together.[106]
What’s the time orientation of people in the culture you’re visiting on your short-term trip? Understanding alone can’t prepare you for all the challenges that may come with opposing views of time, but it’s a good start. If you’re going with a team of people, spend some time anticipating how your approach to time may frustrate the locals who host you. How may their time orientation frustrate you? And what can you learn from each other’s view of time?
High Context versus Low Context
Another important category used to describe cultural differences is high context versus low context. High context refers to places where people have a lot of history together. Things operate in high-context cultures as if everyone there is an insider and knows how to behave. Written instructions and ex
plicit directions are minimal because most people know what to do and how to think.
Our families are probably the most tangible examples of high-context environments. After years of being together, we know what the unspoken rules are of what we eat, how we celebrate holidays, and how we communicate with each other. Many of our church cultures are the same. We know when to sit, stand, and participate. Some national cultures are high-context too. In places such as Latin America, Korea, and the Middle East, information is much more likely to be assumed and embedded within people rather than explicitly stated. There aren’t a lot of signs or detailed information about how to act. High-context cultures can be difficult places to visit as an outsider.
Places such as Western Europe and the United States are low-context cultures. Many of our connections with people and places are of a shorter duration; therefore, less is assumed. Instructions about where to park, how to flush the toilet, and where to order food are often displayed. Low-context cultures can be easier to enter than high-context cultures, because even if you’re an outsider, much of the information needed to participate is explicit. Extra attention is given to providing information about how to act.[107]
Spend some time thinking about how your short-term trip will be affected by whether you’re headed to a high-context or a low-context environment. As North Americans, we’re often frustrated by life in a high-context environment. Signs at the airport may seem unclear, and locals may spend little time giving us instructions about how to order in a restaurant. But as we begin to see the realities of high and low contexts, we begin to grow in CQ Knowledge.
Individualism versus Collectivism
The next three areas come from the work of Geert Hofstede, one of the most important intercultural researchers. The first cultural value Hofstede researched is individualism versus collectivism.[108] This refers to one’s primary source of identity.
One day some friends in Singapore were explaining to me how Singaporean students are put in career tracks as early as fourth or fifth grade. Teachers assess students’ areas of strength, such as writing or math, and begin to groom them for vocations that match those strengths. As a result, by the time Singaporean students get ready to graduate from high school, it’s pretty clear what path they’re going to take—whether medicine, teaching, or technology. However, the universities and technical institutes have a limited number of openings for each area, so after the quotas are reached for premed students or education students, for example, young people are directed into other career paths.
As I listened to this, I aborted any sense of cultural intelligence and said, “That’s so unfair! Why can’t the Singaporean system empower people to pursue their dreams instead of prescribing everyone’s future?”
They listened to me continue my rant then calmly responded, “You’re assuming we place as much importance on personal dreams and goals as North Americans do. For us, the individual is not what’s most important. Our collective society is what we value. If we have an overabundance of physicians and a shortage of teachers, we won’t be sustained as a society. If there aren’t enough people in the technical workforce, we’ll be overrun by other, much larger countries.”
I’m not ready to abandon encouraging people to pursue their personal callings, but this conversation exposed me to my individualist orientation versus their collectivist orientation.
The United States scores higher than any other national culture on Hofstede’s scale of individualism. And Singapore and China are the most collectivist cultures examined by Hofstede. Cultures that score high on the individualism scale are places where people are most concerned about the life, rights, and concerns of the individual. Decisions are based on what an individual deems is best for his or her life. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our own culture. Nowadays, the American dream seems less characterized by having a four-bedroom house with a white picket fence, a minivan, and 2.5 kids than by being able to say, “I’ll think what I want, do what I want, go where I want, and be responsible to no one but myself.”
In contrast, people in collectivist cultures view themselves less autonomously and more as members of groups. They’re concerned about the effects of actions on the group as a whole, and decisions are made by consensus rather than individually. This isn’t to say people living in collectivist cultures are naturally unselfish. Rather, they’re programmed to think first about the goals and needs of the groups of which they’re a part rather than their own individual needs.
Neither end of the continuum is a complete picture of how God calls us to live. Our focus on the individual coincides with the personal attention and responsibility God gives us. Jesus seems very interested in individuals as well as entire families and nations. He calls people to personally follow him. At the same time, our obsession with personal interests and our quest for individual spiritual growth are not a complete reflection of how we’re to live. Scripture is full of examples in which God speaks to communities rather than to individuals. For example, almost every reference to “spiritual maturity” in the New Testament is to a plural audience. I’m not called to resist sin or pursue God by myself, and the goal of my spiritual maturity isn’t just for me. I’m called to mature with my brothers and sisters in the faith, for the sake of my brothers and sisters in the faith—both my local church community and the community of God’s people all over the world past, present, and future.
As we begin to open our eyes to the varying ways cultures view the individual, we see an important area that affects our CQ Knowledge. The college students listening to Jun talk about living with his parents considered first and foremost what Jun would want for himself rather than what might be best for his entire family. Furthermore, Jun didn’t seem to pick up that the students found his living situation unusual. A greater measure of understanding about the varying beliefs cultures have about individuals and groups such as families could increase the cultural intelligence of the North American students and Jun.
Power Distance
Power distance refers to the social distance between leaders and followers. Countries that score high in power distance—such as Mexico, India, and Ghana—offer a great deal of formal respect to leaders. Titles and status are revered, leaders and followers are unlikely to socialize together, and subordinates are not expected to question their superiors. High power distance cultures are usually also very collectivist.
Linda and I have had African friends in our home who are amazed at the amount of voice we give our girls in everyday decisions. It’s second nature for us to give them a choice of what they want for breakfast, the interests they want to pursue, and even where we should go on vacation together. And when they aren’t sure they fully agree with something we espouse, we encourage them to ask the “why” question. We expect them to question respectfully, but the asking itself is welcome. This reflects the individualism and low power distance that exist in our parenting style. We’re trying to prepare our girls to make decisions on their own, and we want them to have a voice in our family decisions—clearly a very North American approach to family life. North Americans score much lower on the power distance scale than most Africans do.
International students from high power distance cultures who come to study in the United States often demonstrate discomfort with our attitudes toward authority figures. A student from Iran said, “The first time my professor told me, ‘I don’t know the answer—I will have to look it up,’ I was shocked. I asked myself, ‘Why is he teaching me?’ In my country a professor would give a wrong answer rather than admit ignorance.”[109]
A student from Indonesia, a culture that scores even higher than Iran in power distance, made this comment: “I was surprised and confused when on leaving Whittier Hall the provost, in person, held the door for me in order to let me pass before he would enter the door. I was so confused that I could not find the words to express my gratefulness, and I almost fell on my knees as I would certainly do back home. A man who is by far my superior is holding t
he door for me, a mere student and a nobody.”[110]
The United States by no means scores lowest on the scale of power distance. Canada, Germany, and Finland score lower. And Austria and Israel are among the lowest power distance cultures in the world. In these contexts, followers feel at ease socializing with their leaders and addressing them as peers. Students feel free to question their pastors, teachers, and parents, and they expect to have input in the decision-making process.
I have antibodies in my system for dictatorial, top-down, hierarchical styles of leadership. I’m much more comfortable with an egalitarian approach in which teams create vision with the input of many voices. However, I must be careful not to biblicize my cultural preferences regarding power distance. Altough the Bible has much to say about the importance of serving and sharing leadership, we have to avoid proof-texting team-based approaches to leadership that are really more culturally based than biblically based. After all, there are far more biblical examples of hierarchical leadership than team-based leadership. But those from high power distance cultures must also be careful not to presume that their cultural preferences are the only biblical way to lead. Are the hierarchical examples of leadership in the Bible an outgrowth of the cultures in which they took place, or are they directives intended by God?
Considering the relationship between so-called high-status people and low-status people and between leaders and followers is an important area in which we must continue to grow in understanding. The short-term participants who engage in cultural intelligence will avoid writing off an offensive leadership style they encounter cross-culturally and instead will seek to understand it.
Serving with Eyes Wide Open Page 13