I... .11... . , :xf?!r:r!.~a r .. z... 5,! .9 . s. r. 35». (12:: ..4;«:9 . . . . , y E.}:5 :f . _ ,2 1;. .. . 1.1.14... . .51; .. x: r; . .137... y 7 3:1...3 r 131,... . . ‘ . . LLILZL‘1EV 1.. 1.9qu .1 t if; «121. 2.. 4?}. . >1 577:... .. . fikfis. . 1.... .11... L.\.‘F\|I~ q . ifi. 5 23). r 4 .1215. . x. ::.J:,. . :,iua& .1? a... .5453»)... tru.\. .3 Z... 1&731 .u:.. L )2». 7:. v1.1. 1...: .3s .7}. r22»... ~ . . x ‘ .L . . a 1‘. .1... 1 .3 .:~.~ 1.1. .R' L, ws‘ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ This is to certifg that the thesis entitled AMERICANS IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: A STUDY OF MEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR CROSS-CULTURAL EXPERIENCE presented bg Francis C. Byrnes has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for —‘_‘Mfl-‘-o3A“-rlv‘ .-<.V .. .. s « ,. a ."-‘m'-» Ht. 4. . W . .. . . . I Ph. D. degree in Communication y Major professor Date March 6. 1963 0469 L I B R A R Y 1 Michigan State . .. University l. .99.: . ABSTRACT AMERICANS IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: A STUDY OF MEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR CROSS-CULTURAL EXPERIENCE by'Francis C. Byrnes This study explores the work-related behavior patterns of thirty- four Americans who had been employed abroad as technical assistants. It investigates the cross—cultural and interpersonal factors associated with their perceptions of behavior, and'then examines the post-tour professional and personal consequences of the experience. With the W. I. Thomas theoremJ'If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences“ as an underlying rationale, the author obtained data in recorded interviews. Respondents had served one or more tours abroad as "direct hire" employees of the International Cooperation Administration, had terminated with ICA during the 2—year period ending December, 1960, and, at the time interviewed, were gainfully employed within the United States. Level of satisfaction with tours positively correlates with the extent men fulfill their expectations. High expectation fulfillment and high satisfaction generally associate with first tours, while half of the men with prior experience abroad report low expectation fulfillment and low satisfaction. Conflicts between role prescriptions and self— expectations, as well as changes in the work role over time, arise from the interplay of many complex factors in technical assistance adminis- tration. Francis C. Byrnes Half of the men find their jobs differ from expected in such respects as being either more or less demanding technically, more operational than advisory, or administrative rather than technical. For two—thirds, the most challenging aspect is "starting from scratch. " Men prefer jobs that provide opportunity to use their initiative and primary competencies. Some men want maximum job latitude; others prefer specified duties. Most depend upon social and professional acceptance by nationals associated with the work to determine how well they are doing; a minority rely on their own judgment of what constitutes achievement of technical standards of job performance. Principal frustrations stem from the American organizational system and from the work—related characteristics and styles of behavior of nationals in the world of work. Two—thirds see the American organi- zation abroad as differing from stateside bureaucracies with which they are familiar. Frustrations with the American system seem to relate to inexperience with complex bureaucracy, conflicts between career and temporary staffs, and unfamiliarity with the behaviors and expectations of their new status. Most 'of the men fail to exhibit under- standing of decision-making in their world of work abroad; they concen- trate on host technicians and estimate they had little influence on decisions. Few man say they experienced culture shock or frustrations at Frustrations tend to mount after the first six With the outset of their tours. months for most, usually peaking at about mid-point of the tour. American-sourced frustrations, men usually try to change the situation, as opposed to adapting to or changing themselves when frustrated by nationals. For work—related interaction with nationals, knowledge of the local language is perceived as relatively unimportant, except in French and Spanish~ speaking countrie s .. Francis C. Byrnes Practically all rate personal relationships important to their work; they most frequently cite the building of their own credibility as the primary value. Nationals with whom Americans feel most close generally speak English and are similar to themselves in education, interests, occupation, and values. Most men exhibit a desire to be both unique and representative Americans, pride themselves on the personalized relationships they establish with nationals, and believe they had better rapport with nationals than most other Americansdid, Two-thirds report their private life and work life abroad more related than in the states. One-third discussed work problems with their wives more, and three-fourths mention how important their wives were in work-related social responsibilities. Men have difficulty reporting their learning experiences. They value self—initiated, informal, on=the=job approaches and generally criticize organized training programs attended. Half of the Americans experience either a personal or professional letdown, or both, upon return to their work in the United States. When they have opportunity to display initiative and use their overseas experi- Men in certain branches of government Although ence, there is less letdown. experience the most letdown, those in education the least. few seemed to take career continuity into account in going abroad, two— thirds believe they advanced professionally by going overseas. They also gained broader views and greater appreciation of other peoples, countries, and cultures, and most View the United States in more appreciative perspectives. Personally, they report development in patience, tolerance, and self-understanding. Elementary linkage analysis identified five typologies: Type I, professionally oriented; Type II, oriented to interpersonal and social approaches within the work role; Type III, interested in the administrative Francis C. Byrnes 4: process of technical assistance; Type IV, most concerned with a job and security, and Type V, chiefly concerned with adventure. Finally, this study suggests the need for further research to help delineate the significant variables which need to be understood about the behavior of Americans in cross-cultural environments. - C0pyright by FRANCIS C. BYRNES 1963 AMERICANS IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: A STUDY OF MEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR CROSS-CULTURAL EXPERIENCE BY Francis C. Byrnes A THESIS Submitted to MichiganS-tate University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCT OR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communic ation 1963 PREFACE Here, at the beginning of this document and the end of the study, I wish to thank individuals representing several specific groups of memorable persons. First, to my parents, John and Gertrude Byrnes, who helped me learn the value of education and knowledge; and to my wife, Ethel, most loyal critic and editor, and our three children, Kerry, Kevin, and Kathryn, for their enthusiastic support. Next, to my adviser, Dr. John Useem, for his patience, insight== producing questions, and always available counsel, and to my department chairman, Dr. David K. Berlo, for his personal interest and professional stimulation. Throughout, they and the other members of my committee== Dr. John X. Jamrich, Dr. Malcolm S. MacLean, Jr., and Dr. Fred S. Sieberta—generated respect, enthusiasm, and productivity. To Dr. Glen L. Taggart and his International Programs staff at Michigan State University for professional guidance as well as for facilitating completion of the research with funds provided through the Ford Foundation grant. I also wish to thank personnel of the International Cooperation Administration and the Agency for International Development for counsel and help in making records available. And, finally, a most sincere thanks to the thirtyufour respondents without whose patience, cooperation, and trust this study would not have been possible. ii ____._.-__ :..__. __ .— __-.____..___=__-=_.._—a.-—=- TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. INTRODUCTION ....... . . . . . . . ...... 1 Background ..... . . . . . . . . . . ..... 2 Focus of This Study ...... . . . . . . . . . . 8 The Population and the Sample . ....... . . 9 l4 HowDataWereGathered. . . . . . . . . . . . . FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPECTATIONS AND II. SATISFACTION IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE . . 19 What Men Seek or Expect in a Position Overseas 19 Sources of Information About Their Role. . . . . 23 What Affects Expectation Fulfillment. . . . . . . 25 Level of Satisfaction with the Tour . . . . . . . . 39 Correlates of General Satisfaction ........ 43 Summary..................... 51 III. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH WORK PERFORMa ANCE IN TECHNICALASSISTANCE ....... 53 Evaluation of Performance . . . . . . ‘. . . . . . 54. What Men Bring to the Work Situation ...... 59 How They Cope with Frustrations . . . . . . . 63 Influence on Decisions and Decision-Making . . . 83 Summary..................... 97 IV. WORK—RELATED INTERACTION WITH NATIONALS IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ..... . . . . . 100 Use of Language . . ...... . . . . . . . lOO Characteristics of Technical Assistance Special- ists... .. ..... .........105 Nature of Close Personal Relationships . . . . . 113 . . 123 Summary........... TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER V. WORK—RELATED INTERACTION WITH OTHER AMERICANS IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. . . . Quality of Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perception of American Organization ....... Personal Relationships with Americans ..... o‘cooooc- Surnmary............. VI. LEARNING IN CROSS=CULTURAL ROLES . . . . . . Problems of Studying Learning . . . . a . . . . . What Was Important to Learn . . . . . . . . . . Productive Ways of Learning . . . . . . . . . What Was Easy and Difficult to Learn . . . . . Views of Self as a Learner . . . . . . . . How Nationals Learned from Americans . . . . . Summary and Propositions About Learning. . . . VII. POST—TOUR EXPERIENCES AND REACTION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SPECIALISTS. . . . . Why They Left ICA .............. . Initial Reaction‘Upon Return to United States. . . Nature of Present Employment . . ........ Disposition Toward Future Work Abroad ..... Changes in Individuals' Viewpoints . . . . . . . . Reflections and Perspectives on Foreign Experience ..... . . . . . . Summary.... . VIII. COMMONALITIES AND TYPOLOGIES AMONG -POSTSCRIPT . . BIBLIOGRAPHY.... ...... APPENDICES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SPECIALISTS. . . . . Review of Commonalities . . . . . . . . Typologies of Behavior . . . . . . ..... . Implications for Further Study . ..... . . Summary ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o e o o ....... 0 o u o u o Page 126 127 133 137 140 142 144 148 155 155 157 159 162 162 164 166 171 172 190 204 207 207 211 223 225 227 231 238 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. Most important specification for a future overseas assignment ..... 20 2. Relationship between level of education and desire for securityorfreedom........... ..... 21 3. Relationship between specification of geographic area and desire for security or freedom in job. . . . . . . . . 22 4. Fulfillment of expectations in relation to prior overseas experience......................... 24 5. Level of general satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6. Extent to which expectations were fulfilled ..... . . . 4O 7. Level of satisfaction compared with level of expectation fulfillment......................... 40 8. Relationship between prior overseas experience and general satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 44 9. How Americans say they determined how well they were doing on their technical assistance jobs ....... . . . 55 10. Items relating to culture and customs which Americans say created difficulties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 11. How Americans would like to be remembered by host . . 105 nationals........................ ..Characteristics of close personal relationships . . . . . 115 . Quality of relationships with superiors as related to frequency ofinteraction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 14. 15. 16. 17. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Quality of relationships with peers as related to frequency of interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of interaction with superiors as related to where officed. . . . . . . Prior employment in United States as related to quality and frequency of interaction with superiors . . . . . . Ways Americans perceive American organization abroad differs from other bureaucracies with which they are familiar.................... . How Americans assess identification with and depend- ence upon American organization abroad and specific workgroup......................... . Spirit Americans perceive as characterizing relations among mission personnel. Prior overseas experience and what Americans c0n= sider important to learn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Americans consider important to learn as related to educational level and orientation. . . . . . . . . . . Educational orientation and what Americans find as most productive ways to learn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overseas experience and what Americans consider difficult and easy to learn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employment before and after tour abroad . . . . . . . . Salary and status as compared with peers without experienceabroad..................... Changesincareergoals vi Page 130 131 134 134 135 145 146 - LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE Page 27. Participation in international relations, foreign affairs, and technical assistance-activities in 1961. . . . . . . . 198 28. Number of face-to-face interactions with foreign nationalsinl96l...................... 199 29. Frequency of correspondence with foreign nationals in 1961............................199 30. Number of nationals with whom Americans correspond with greatest frequency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 31. Job orientation in relation to the five typologies. . . . . 222 LIST OF APPENDIC ES APPENDIX Page A. Interview Schedule ..... . . . . ........ . . 239 B. Items which "Bothered" or Frustrated . . . . . . . . 255 C. Items Used in Elementary Linkage Analysis to Identify Typologies. . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . 260 D. Distribution of Demographic and Control Data Among Five Typologies. . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . 269 E. Percentage of Respondents in Each Typology Mention- ing Each Discriminating Item . . . . ........ . 271 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study explores the similarities and differences in the pat- terns of behavior of professional and technical men in cross-cultural technical assistance work roles. It focuses on their perceptions of their work, both abroad and after their return to professional positions in the United States. The study of these cross-cultural professional activities develops out of a basic interest in human behavior; however, the data also relate to problems in recruiting, preparing, and utilizing American specialists on technical assistance missions. The latter issue concerns the United States government as well as American universities which increasingly are becoming involved in preparing people for and/or executing technical assistance projects sponsored by government, foundations, or other organizations. With respect to the overseas situation, the principal concerns are with how a man perceives his behavior in relati_0_n,t,o. his position, the roles he performs, the work organizations to which he is responsible, the formal and informal relationships that develop, the persons he influences and the persons who influence him, the problems andfrus- trations he faces,and the unique role he plays in complex and unfamiliar communication situations. The post-tour aspects of the study focus on the significance and utility of the overseas experience in his present position; ,his salary and status relationships to others in his profession, and his perceptions of how the overseas experience influences his views of himself, his profession, his career, and his country. —— W Background For every American employed overseas by the United States government in 1935, 30 were employed in 1960. The Department of Defense accounts for much of this increase. The increase also reflects the development of a new professional, the technical assistance adviser. In this area, the Agency for International Development alone employs 13, 000 Americans overseas, and another 2, 000 are employed by AID contractors. Of this total, approximately 6, 000 serve in technical, supervisory, and executive capacities. This new occupation is defined variously as technical assistance, technical cooperation, or develop— ment assistance. It is frequently misunderstood. Growth of Technical Assistance. The United-States government's first major effort to send American specialists abroad to teach technical skills came in 1942 with the "Good Neighbor“ program for Latin America, operated through the Institute of Inter—American Affairs. This program still is evident in the "servicios" associated with United States missions in several Latin American countries. In 1947, the United States attempted to provide economic and military aid to Greece and Turkey. Under the Marshall Plan (1948), this effort was expanded to all of Western Europe. Success of the Marshall Plan led the Congress to pass, in 1950, the first act for inter— national development. This program, popularly known as "Point Four, " extended technical assistance around the world as necessary. At the start of the Korean War, "Point Four" was supplemented by military aid. Later in the 1950‘s, the United States began to export agricultural surpluses to less-developed nations. In 1955, the Inter- national Cooperation Administration was established as a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of State; the Development Loan Fund was created in 1957 as an additional way to provide for overseas economic development through long-term, low-interest loans. These various aid efforts were grouped together in March, 1961, when the Agency for International Development was established to unify and modify exist- ing aid programs. »From the beginning, the United States pursued two major objectives: ' 1. To prevent the military conquest of peaceful nations. 2. To develop self—reliance and reasonable self-sufficience of developing nations through cooperation in social and economic fields. The first objective was a deterring action and has required military assistance. The second was a direct constructive action and has required the development of the technical specialist function. -Nature of the Specialist Function. The United States government has sent thousands of Americans to‘more than 60 countries and these technicians represent hundreds of occupations. Foreign programs include work in agriculture, natural resources development, industry, mining, transportation, telecommunications, meteorology, labor relations, health, sanitation, education, public administration, public safety, community development, housing, banking and credit development, and the peaceful uses of atomic energy. These programs have required specific kinds of technical assist- ance; Ohly differentiates these into two functional categories: Performance technical assistance which involves the actual performance in another country by an American technician of a task which the local people lack the skills to perform. The technician fills an operational vacuum in the host country. Communication technical assistance which is designed to communicate information, skills, values, attitudes or patterns of behavior to the people of another society and which, if success- fully carried out, will result in an improvement in the individual and institutionalized capabilities of the recipients. 1John Ohly, "Planning Future Joint Programs, " Human Organization, Vol. 21, No. 2, (Summer 1962), pp. 137—53. As C aldwell outline s: "The role of the expert in technical cooperation does not really differ in principle from any other occupational roles in society. The elements of: definition of the job by the employer, employee self-image, employee's knowledge and skills, and expectations of clientele combine to form the roles of the members of any administrative organization. "1 The elements Caldwell suggests are of obvious importance to those engaged in performance technical assistance. The situation is more complex for those in communication technical assistance. The technical adviser is not to perform technical acts. He is to help create, energize and guide the administrative machinery, facilities, and con- ditions through which the host nationals perform a suitably adapted version of the act. As Cleveland puts it, "the engineer does not build a bridge, he helps construct an organization to build bridges. "2 As further support for this point, some describe the technical assistance role as ”institution building. ” Success in this role assumes much more than technical competence. Cleveland stresses a "sense for politics" along with "organization ability. " Weidner points out some of the problems inherent in the fact that ”the personal drive for pro- ductivity must be qualified by the realities of the situation: innovation cannot be pushed to fast. "3 Weidner goes on to agree with Cleveland that "there must be a professional adjustment of a ’sense for politics;' The American professor abroad must know how hard and how far he can push without injuring the objective he seeks. ” The Civil Service 1Lynton K. Caldwell, ”The Role of the Technical Expert, “ The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 323 (May 1959). p. 92. .ZHarlan Cleveland, Gerard J. Mangone and John Clarke Adams, The Overseas Americans (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1960), p. 157. 3Edward W. Weidner, The World Role of Universities (New York: MCGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962), pp. 225-230. Commission's study of 1, 000 cases of all kinds of government em- ployees abroad emphasizes their personal characteristics.1 Clearly, the communication technical assistance area requires technical performance competence on the part of the adviser; however, it also assumes a thorough understanding on his part of the non-technical variables involved in advising and facilitating the efforts of others. Caldwell, in arguing that technical assistance work requires the same competence as other roles in society, goes on to point out that "What is distinctive about the role of the expert in international technical cooperation is the degree to which disparities exist among . . . elements and hence the multiplication of points at which misunderstanding and conflicts may occur. "2 These viest emphasize the unique multiplicity of roles involved in technical advising, The American may see himself, and others will observe and evaluate him, as: 1. An instrument of American foreign policy, a representative of the United States abroad, and a decision maker on foreign aid. 2. A change agent and innovator, manifesting the technical "know how" of the United States. . A representative of his profession. . An adviser: a consultant, teacher, or trainer. 3 4 5. A doer: an operator, technician, or administrator. 6.1 A humanitarian, a doer of good deeds. 7 . An intermediary: a man in the middle, a member of two or more organizations--one American, the other foreign. 8. Father, husband, family man, friend, etc. These complexities in expectations often lead to the confusion and frustrationCaldwell suggests. The context of a fluid world situation 1U. S. Civil Service Commission. Research Project on-Selection Methods for Overseas Employees, (Washington: Examining and Place- ment Division, August, 1953), pp. 2—6. ZCaldwell, p. 92. with changing political contexts at home and abroad is confounded by the evolving organization and administration of technical assistance, by the dependence upon annual appropriations to support long—term programs, and by what Thurber criticizes as the failure of the United States to "develop a satisfactory doctrine of development assistance. "1 It is within this context that the technical adviser must work. Other factors which may influence significantly an advisor's perceptions and behavior grow out of his interaction with the "under- developed" nature of the situation in which he must operate and is expected to change. An American technician abroad rarely, if ever, finds himself surrounded with the administrative and logistic support he has come to expect at home. He may be quite unaware how much he has depended upon other people for various aspects of his job. Abroad, he may find the support, if it exists at all, technically less adequate, and, more importantly, that he, the technician, must do many things for himself. In addition, as Foster2 points out, the technician abroad may look upon the assignment as an opportunity to excel to a degree not possible at home for some reason. Technicians have pride in their pro— fession, frequently see it as the key element in solving the problems of an underdeveloped area, and, more often than not, may be reluctant to compromise their approach by integrating it with those of another specialist or of the host nationals. Similarly, an ”under-developed" situation which one technician finds challenging may frustrate another.. States of underdevelopment 1Clarence E. Thurber, '‘The Problem of Training Americans for Service Abroad in U. S. Government Technical Cooperation Programs, " (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Stanford University, April, 1961), 4 Chapter 10. ’ 2George W. Foster, Traditional Cultures; and the Impact of Technological Change (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), pp. 181—87.. vary from country to country, and the specialist frequently forgets or overlooks the stages of development through which his own country progressed in reaching the state against which he compares the host country. In summary, we have suggested that successful accomplishment of both forms of technical assistance involves more than technical \/ competence. In both cases, the multiplicity of and (sometimes) antagon- istic relationships among adviser roles are crucial. Furthermore, those engaged in communication technical assistance have additional problems engendered by the fact that their mission is not to operate but to advise, not to "get the job done themselves" but to restrict themselves to working through others who must do the job for themselves. The personnel, management, and communication problems implied by the argument above are obvious. If we are to understand the nature of the technical cooperation process and if operating agencies are to maximize their success in providing technical assistance, we need a thorough analysis of the characteristics of the adviser. We need data V on how he views the world, himself, his mission, and his various roles. We need to understand how he learns while overseas, and with whom he interacts. We need to know his expectations before accepting his position, his success while in the position, and his reactions and experi- ences after completing his assignment. We need to be_able t3 predict behavior in the overseasfiakssigprment as a function of these variables. Unfortunately, data necessary to develop a theoretic view of the problem does not exist. 1 Conferences and study groups have analyzed 1Research literature relating to the behaviors of Americans in Cross-cultural work assignments is extremely scanty even if one includes Americans working abroad in scholarly exchange programs, as mission- aries, or in business and industry. References consulted in planning and carrying out this study are listed in the bibliography. such issues, have described problems, and cited case histories of successes and failures. Such meetings emphasized and reiterated the need for systematic inquiry into the way Americans respond to the pro- fessional and personal problems they encounter when working abroad. A popular book provides many Americans with their major views on 1 this question. The Ugly American created a stereotype of the techni— cal assistance man abroad and of the kind of a person, displaying certain attributes and behaviors, who would be most successful in serving both the interests of the United States and the host government. Such a book makes interesting reading; however, it may not provide a factual or theoretic base for predicting and understanding the behavior of men engaged in the cross—cultural work roles involved in technical assistance. If we are to develop such a theory, exploratory work is needed in the areas described. We are not ready to formulate and test hypotheses rigorously. We need basic data on which to base future hypotheses. The gathering and organizing of such data is the purpose of this study. Focus of This Study Our purpose was to analyze data relevant to how a technical adviser relates himself to his organization, his job assignment, the host country personnel with whom he works, other advisers, etc. Ideally, such an objective can best be obtained by observing his behavior while in the host country and by gathering data from many people other than himself. This study is restricted, however, to the perceptions of the/“America“n adviser and the meanings he has for his foreign assignment. It further is restricted to his perceptions after he has returned to the United States. 1William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, The Ugly American. (New York: W. W. Norton& Company, 1958). Two kinds of considerations conditioned such restrictions. For one thing, the existing state of knowledge about this problem area (e.g. , how to ask questions most fruitfully, what kinds of questions to ask) did not warrant the administrative clearances and expenses involved in an extensive field study. Second, the adviser's own perceptions are a crucial kind of data. As W. I. Thomas puts it succinctly: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. "1 Merton elaborates on Thomas's theme: ‘ "The first part . . . provides an unceasing reminder that men respond not only to the objective features of a situation, but also, and at times primarily, to the meaning this situation has for them. And once they have assigned some meaning to the situation, their consequent behavior and some of the conse- quences of that behavior are determined by the ascribed meaning. The Population and the Sample In selecting a population for the study, we took into account such things as: 1. Availability of respondents for interviews at minimal expense. 2. Maximization of the recency of the overseas experience. 3. Allowance of time for the population to have become re- established at home. 4. Numerical adequacy of the population in terms of drawing a sample from it. Under these criteria, we chose as a population persons who had held professional and technical specialist classifications in ICA and who had terminated their employment with ICA between January 1, 1958, 1W. I. Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas, The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928), P. 572. 2Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure. (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1949), pp. 421=22. 10 and December 31, 1960. This population imposes at least two re— strictions on the data: (a) other agencies than ICA employ significant numbers of technical advisers, and (b) perceptions of those who leave the agency may be quite different from perceptions of those who remain. We chose ICA, however, because it is the major employer of technical advisers. Other than availability, the use of people who had left the agency has two values: 1. Although ICA now has a career service program, a Significant proportion of its field operations are performed by persons who complete one or more 2-year tours of duty and then return to their former posts in the United States—=or retire. 2. Use of this population allows us also to assess the post-tour utility of the overseas experience. Between May and November of 1961, we wrote to the 395 names provided by ICA as meeting our criteria. We included a short data form which asked for the nature of current employment and other facts not available from ICA records. If the addressees did not reply, we sent second and third mailings as necessary. -On the basis of these three mailings, we categorized the 395 people as follows: Category Number Employed (not ICA), 179 unemployed, or student within United States Retired 33 Deceased 9 Employed: ICA/Washington 1 2 Employed overseas 60 Letters returned: 38 addre s s ee unknown No response 64 Total 395 Ninety of the 179 were located in the northeastern portion of the United States: the area bounded on the west by the Mississippi River and on the south by the Mason-Dixon line. To reduce travel expenses, we restricted the population to those 90. To increase the homogeneity of the group, we further restricted the population by eliminating all those (a) in school, (b) female, or (c) unemployed. This left a group of 70 men employed in the northeastern part of the United States in the winter and spring of 1962. This group of 70 was stratified on three variables: (a) employ- ment—=United States government, non—profit institutions, or profit- making organizations; (b) education—-technical or non—technical, and (c) whether or not they were accompanied abroad by children. The final sample of thirty-four respondents consisted of approximately half of the men in each of those twelve groups. We selected respondents so as to correspond to the total northeastern group as closely as possible in age, levels of education, areas of the world involved in the last tour of duty, and the political orientation of the host country. These criteria also were used in selecting replacements for the seven who would not consent to an interview, the seven we could not locate by the time we were ready to interview, and the one respondent who became ill. Profile of the Sample. The following paragraphs describe relevant characteristics of the sample: Age. Respondents ranged in age from 30 to 63 years, with a median of 46 and a distribution as follows: Between ages 30-39, eleven persons; between 40-49, ten; between 50-59, eleven; 60 and over, two. Level of Education. No college or university degree, three; bachelor‘s degree, nine; master's degree, twelve; doctoral level degree (including doctor of philosophy, doctor of education, doctor of medicine, and doctor of veterinary medicine), ten. 12 Educational Orientation. There were seventeen-men in each~ of the two categories: ' "Technical, " including all work in the natural, physical, and biological sciences (normally leading to B.S. and'M.S. degrees), and- "non-technical,- " including social sciences, humanities, and related subjects (normally‘leading to‘B. A. and M. A. degrees). .Marital and Family StatusAbroad. ‘ Thirty-one respondents went abroad married, each-accompanied by his wife. Three of the respondents, single before going abroad, returned-and have remained single. One divorced his wife while abroad and had married another since returning to the states. The wife of one man returned to the states seriously ill and died shortly after he had completed the tour. .Children accompanied twenty-four of the respondents abroad; the numbers and sex of children involved were nineteen boys and nineteen girls. Length of. Tour. - This study was concerned with the "last" or ' "most recent" tour; the tour range was from .9 to 36 months and. sub— divides into three categories: 9 to 18‘months, eleven persons; 19 to 24 months, twelve; and 25 to36 months, eleven. Time Back in United States. - More than half had been back ”in the United-States at least 2 years at the time interviewed (January-April, 1962);. ”back home" time distributedas follows: 12 to 18‘mon’ths, six; 19 to 24 months, nine; 25 to36 months, nineteen. w Employment Prior to‘ GoingAbroad. . Respondents were classified intofour categories of pre-overseas tour employment: . Government (limited to employment by UnitedStates government); non-profit insti- tutions, . including state and local governments, educational systems and institutions, charitable and benevolent organizations, foundations, and professional associations and societies; profit-making organizations, including business, industry, and the self-employed, as in.a profession; and those enrolled in educational institutions. The sample distributed as follows: Government, ten; non-profit institutions, sixteen; profit— ~making organizations, six; enrolled-as students, two. Employment Since Returning from Abroad. Using the same four categories, the post-tour pattern of employment is: United States government, fourteen; non—profit institutions, ten; profit-making organis zations, ten. .Prior Overseas Service in Technical Assistance. Twelve had worked in technical assistance type activities abroad prior to the "last tour" of concern to this study. One had worked in five other countries, one in four other countries, four in two other countries, and six in one other country. Among these twelve, the total years of prior overseas service ranged from 1 to 11 years. Salary Grade. - At the time of leaving ICA, all held an FSR grade designation. In this series, the lower the number, the higher the salary. 1 FSRn-Z ($14,900), six; FSR—3 ($12, 535), eleven; FSR=4 ($10,645), nine; The grades were distributed in the sample as follows: FSR-5 ($8, 755), five; FSR-6 ($7,215), two; and FSR-=7 ($6,835), one. City in Which Stationed Abroad. All but five of the men had been based and quartered in the capitol city of the country in which assigned; one was at a provincial capital, and the other four located in small,- remote cities or villages. Where Officed and Travel Status. ~Eighteen had offices within the United States Operations Mission, nine were with host organizations, and seven in various combinations of facilities. Amount of time spent traveling varied greatly from none for two persons to more than 75 percent for one. Half of the men were in travel status from 11 to 50 percent of the time. I Political Orientation of Countries. 1 Using Coleman‘s system for classifying the political orientation of countries, the men in this sample 1The FSR was one of three prefixes used to designate foreign service positions in ICA. In July, 1958, the base salaries for the grades I‘anged from $5, 085 (FSR-8) to $17, 250 (FSR—l). l4 served incountries classified and distributed as follows: Authoritarian, eleven; semi-competitive, twelve, and competitive, eleven.1 How Data Were Gathered Prior to the interview, we received data on each respondent from his ICA personnel card and from a form which the men filled out in response toour initial letter. During the interview, respondents also completed several structured forms; however, tape—recorded interviews based on a schedule of open-end or free response items produced the principal data for the study. Original items for the questionnaire were drawn from prior research‘and theory and from the author‘s experience in working abroad, in preparing Americans about to go abroad, and in training some 1, 000 foreign nationals in the United States. 1 The final questionnaire was developed after a series of exploratory interviews with former technical assistance specialists. The questionnaire was divided into six major areas of inquiry, and the findings are similarly organized in the- seven chapters, Chapters II through‘VIII. These areas, along withquestions typical of each, are: 1. Factors associated with expectations and satisfactions in technical assistance positions. What did you expect to be doing as the result of the information you had received incident to being recruited, processed, and briefed? After arriving in the country, what did your principal activities and duties turn out to be ? - In your judgment, what were the-major problems of the host organization which were obstacles with respect to the work in whichyou were engaged? 1Gabriel Almond. and James 5.. Coleman, The-Politics of the 23ve10ping.Areas. (Princeton: The‘Princeton University Press, 1960), PP. 532'5810 15 What concepts of purpose or objective relating to your work were held by host nationals ? 2. Factors associated with men's work performance in cross- cultural technical assistance roles. With respect to this tour of duty abroad, how would you rate your own performance ? How did you determine how well you were doing? In what particular duties or activities related to your work did you feel most adequate ? Most inadequate? As far as you were concerned professionally, what were the most challenging things about your work? Where was it most productive to concentrate your efforts? What influence, if any, did you have on the process by which decisions were made in the host organization? 6. Factors associated with the Americans' work=related inter- / action with nationals. In what ways did some knowledge of the language help you? How did you go about giving advice to people? In what ways were personal relationships important in your work? How did you go about finding out what the host nationals with whom you had frequent personal relationships were really like? Were social affairs with host nationals useful in accomplishing your work? With which host nationals did you feel you had the greatest influ- ence in matters relating to your work? 4. Factors associated with the Americans' work-related inter- action with other Americans. How much a part of the American organization did you feel? How dependent were you upon the work group? In what way did the American organization differ from bureaucra- cies with which you were already familiar? In comparison with your U. S. experience, was your work life and your private life abroad inter-related to a greater or less extent, or about the same? 16 (5. Factors associated with what and how menlearn in cross- cultural work roles. What did you feel were the most important things to learn with respect to the work situation? What for you were the most useful and productive ways of learn- ing what you considered important to learn? About what things in the world of work were you most apt to ask questions of nationals? Of Americans ? What did you find easy for you to learn? Hard? How do you feel about yourself as a learner? 6. Professional and personal consequences of the overseas experience for men involved. What would you say are your career goals, ambitions, or aspira- tions now? How does the organization where you are employed value overseas experience such as you have had? What skills, talents, and abilities do you feel you discovered in yourself while working abroad? In what ways has the overseas experience led you to alter your understanding about or change your interests in the underdeveloped countries and areas of the world? The United States? Your own pro=- fession? Your own organization? What factors or events in the overseas situation do you feel were most influential in changing your outlook and in modifying the views you hold? All interviews were conducted in the respondent's city of residence: thirteen in the office, three in the home, and eighteen in a hotel room. Most interviews lasted 5 to 6 hours; the minimum was 2%- hours, the maximum, 9;— hourS. The interviews were recorded without objection by all but three respondents. One of these three refused to be recorded, claiming too much experience in using recordings in police and intelligence work. The other two did not object but were uneasy about the recorder and often asked if the machine was running. When someone asked for the ——— . __ Jimmvrw‘ _ J 17 recorder to be stopped before answering a question, we turned it off and noted the-answer in longhand. Torreduce apparent awarenessof the presence of the recorder, we equipped it with a foot control and removedit from the respondent's direct vision after the first six inter= views. To take intoaccount many of the problems suggested by Gross and Mason, 1 we spent the first 10 to. 20 minutes establish-ing rapport by talking generally about the study, gave reassurance that the; study was not government- sponsoredand that the respondent's anonymity would be protected. - Interview fatigue was reduced by breaks about every 90 minutes. . Nearly all interviews were broken by a meal, lunch or dinner. Occasionally, the respondent completed one of the forms during a break. Usually, however, the interviewer directed the conversation away from theinterview schedule and elicited responses relating to therman's family, his family's reaction to the overseas experience, his satis- faction with his present job, and so forth. ‘Overall, . and excepting for the reservations noted-above about the recorder, all of theimen seemed eager to talk about their overseas experiences. They frequently complained that no one had ever seemed sufficiently interested in them or their experiences to listen to them. In other words, it was not difficult to get men to talk about such'experi- ence-s. But it was difficult to elicit specific information. Me-n‘more readily expressed how they thought or felt about something as opposed todescribing the object or event involved. - They frequently relied on slang, . idioms, cliches, and figures of speech, suggesting a patterned emotional reaction to the tOpic.. -They found certain facets of their own behavior hard to report, particularly these: (a) What they actually did; (b) how they learned, and \/ m - lNeal Gross and Ward‘s. Mason,« "Some Methodological Problems of Eight-Hour‘lntervliews. ” .Amer. Jour. of Soc. vLIX, 3 (Nov. , 1953), PP. 197-204. 18 (c) what understanding they had of the decision—making process and the'extent they influenced the process or the decisionmakers. . In talking about what they did, men tended torreflect formal job descriptions and were generally unable to report the range of activities in which they engagedor the relative importance of these. With respect to the issue of learning, men appear to be unaware ./ of what they do andlearn; thus it serves little purpose toiask them about it. The men in this study provided one possible way of getting'in- sight into the learning process. Although we had not intended the ques- tions and probes about learning to be projectives, several respondents answered them in this context. They appeared more ready andvable to express what they thought a person "ought to know” if he were going to work abroad, and how “it would be best for him tolearn" than they were [/1 to answer questions which asked them to go back in time and discuss their own learning experiences. We perhaps did not ask the appropriate'questions todetermine the; extent respondents had insight into the decision-makingprocess and influenced decisions, decision-makers, and theprocess. -While the process can appear deceptively simple, in cross-cultural perspective it may emerge-as bafflingly complex. Believing that the case history, approachimight help unlock the activities in whicha man engaged and his insight ondecision-making structures, we initially asked respondents to tell about one or more of their'projects. This consumed time; the-men tendedto talk about those activities in which they were miosHtmsudcfcflessjgupl, and,. as with other experi- ences, they left out essential details which they took for grantedor about which they were not fully. aware. - Several said they werenot able toassess the success or failure of tasksundertaken because they were in the country for only 2 years and such time was too’short tocomplete the work. CHAPTER II FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPECTATIONS AND - SATISFACTION IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE- In the preceding chapter, we outlined the context in which the technical assistance specialist functions. He plays a comparatively new professional role, and a role that has been ambiguously defined, frequently misunderstood, and rarely studied or documented. In this chapter, we analyze some of the factors associated with the expecta— tions men bring to the cross—cultural work role and the satisfactions they derive from the experience. We present the data in five sections: What men seek or expect in a position overseas, sources of information about their role, what affects fulfillment of expectations, their levels of satisfaction with the tour, and the correlates of general satisfaction. What Men Seek or Expect in a Position Overseas Table 1 reports reSponses to the question asking men to specify what would be most important to them in a future overseas assignment. As a projective question, we expected it to elicit basic orientations to work as these had been tempered by the experience of working abroad. The three men who want both a clear statement and freedom to Operate tend to want minimum restrictions on how one actually goes about his work but a clear statement of overall objectives and relation- ships. For purposes of analysis, we group them with the seventeen Who want freedom in all job areas. 19 20 Table 1. Most important specification for a future overseas assign- ment. Specification Number Clear statement of duties and responsibility (specific 6 statement of goals-objectives, outline of people— relationships, guidelines for action, etc.). Freedom to Operate professionally (want to use fully 17 my. skill, want work of challenge, freedom to work out level of responsibility). Both a clear statement and freedom. 3 Other (salary, personal concerns about family and 8* education, etc.). Several others also included these kinds of concerns as secondary Specifications. Both the six who want a clear statement of duties and responsi— bilities and the eight who want a clear statement of salary and other personal concerns can be combined into a ”security conscious" group. Those desiring "security" do not differ from those desiring "freedom" when compared as to educational orientation, prior overseas experience, or salary-grade level. »The two groups differwith respect to level of education and with whether they express apreference for a given geographical area of the world. -I_.._evel of Education. As reported in Table 2, three-fourths of those wanting freedom in which to work hold graduate degrees, while those desiring job or personal security-are evenly split between. those with bachelor‘s and those with advanced degrees. l .vflli‘f' '11-.- .' 21 Table 2. Relationship between level of education and desire for security or freedom. Level of Education No ‘Bachelor' 3 Advanced Personal Orientation Degree Degree Degree Total Security 0 7 7 14 Freedom 3 2 15 20 Total 3 9 22 34 The security-freedom dichotomy suggests task vs. disciplinary orientations such as might be a function of level of education and degree of professional status. The data partially support this thesis, as does this comment by a university scientist respondent: "It. should be understood that competent technicians should have the greatest possible autonomy in their jobs. " Backgrounds of the three ”no degree" and two- “bachelor's degree" persons in the job freedom group further support the professional orientation. - One of the former group was a veteran metal craftsman and had been vice-president of a manufacturing firm before going abroad. The second was a-"self taught" businessman who, before going abroad, was executive director of a‘national trade associationand vice-president of a large machine tool manufacturing company. The third, whilehold- ing no formal degrees in higher education, had completed a trade-school PrOgram inmarine transportationandeconomics, believed this com- pared favorably with a college degree, andlooked upon himself as a professional . 1 Both of the meninthis group with bachelor‘s degrees are (more than 50 years of age and held responsible positions for many years. 22 AA, an accountant, had worked for the United States government for more than 25 years, the last 10 years before going abroad as director 1 GG, who had taken some advanced work in of a major division. educational administration, had completed one 4=year tour abroad for theICA as well as another 2 years as a civilian with the‘army inpost- war’Europe before entering on the tour of duty being studied. With the data available, it is difficult to account for the security orientation of the seven persons with advanced degrees. Two of the sevenhad prior experience abroad, but with such other variables as educational orientation, age, or field of work, no trend is evident. Area of World. After the free responses to the general question ( on specifications for a future overseas assignment, a probe elicited re3ponses about the area or areas of the world in which they would accept assignment. As Table 3 indicates, those who want freedom in which to work are muchless likely to express a preference for a specific country or area or to outline other conditions restricting areas. In other words, those who prefer job freedom are less con— cerned about where they work than those who want their jobs fully Specified. Table 3. Relationship between specification of geographic area and desire for security or freedom in job. Specified Geographic Area for Future Assignment Personal Orientation Yes No Total Security 1 1 3 14. Freedom 6 14 20 Total 17 17 34 1Throughout, we identify individual cases with double letters in order to protect the identity of the respondents. 23 Sources of Information About Their Role Although men gain informationinfluencing their role expectations from many sources, our data permit analysis of three sources of information related to development of expectations: ' PeOple talked with inICA/Washington, prior experience abroad, and, to a lesser extent, reading. (People as. Sources. Twenty—one men cite program people in ICA/Washington as the principal sources of information which generated their expectations of what they would be doing after arriving in the host country. Six others named the personnel people of ICA, and two mention both program and personnel peOple. .Five persons read job descriptions, reports, and technical papers about the work before leav-a ing the United: States . Prior Experience. Table 4 compares fulfillment of expectations with previous overseas experience, indicating that nine of the ten who had no previous service abroad found their overseas job generally to radically different from expected. - Similarly, four of the 'six who had "little idea of what to expect"lacked prior experience. The cases of three men illustrate how; administrative circum- stances interact with prior overseas experience to lead-experienced persons to say they had*"little idea of what to expect" or that the situ- ation was "radically different" from that expected: - CC, the doctor who was unable to undertake his assignment be— cause :of a.- student strike, describes the circumstances as being "radically different. " AG indicates that he had "little idea of what to expect” inasmuch as he was suddenly transferred to another country 2 months after being returned to the country of his initial tour for another 2-year. assignment. He believes he did not receive adequate explanation from-ICA‘for the —_—" “”7" 24 Table 4. Fulfillment of expectations in relation to prior overseas experience. Nature of Expectation Previous Overseas Experience - Fulfillment Y e s N o T otal About same as expected to somewhat different 9 9 18 Generally to radically different 1 9 10 Little idea of what to expect 2 4 6 Total 12 22 34 move or any instructions as to what he was supposed to do in the regional post: ~ "Originally, the local mission did not want me there; the director did not believe a regional adviser should be basedin his country unless he could have more say in his activities. I had to develop my job through cable and correspondence with Washington, and then work out with the various missions in the region what to do. - None of the missions were aware of my existence or availability until I advised them. " . SS , the second person who "'had little idea of what to expect, " was transferred to asixth Latin Americancountry after nearly 10 years of duty in five other countries in. LatinAmerica. The agreement that he was brought in to implement was ready for signature when he arrived; a year later it was still awaiting the minister's approval: ”I had indicated a desire for-a transfer from X, and the Y mission spoke for me; I talked to the desk officer for‘Y in 'Washington, and he was not familiar with the program in general, and not at all about the specific program that I was supposed to implement. The original program was deve10ped witha former minister who had a definite, sincere interest. By the time they got around to staffing, the minister had changed, and the new man had little or no interest. " 25 Consideration of these data should recognize that expectations and, subsequently, satisfactions exist in at least three: separate dimensions for some men: ‘ Professional, administrative, and personal. The questions asked in this study and, consequently, the answers received did not discriminate among these dimensions; however, it is fairly obvious that some men provide a generalized response while others, consciously or unconsciously, answer in the context of one of the three dimensions . What Affects Expectation Fulfillment Essentially, we are concerned with the process and the factors that may lead a man to perceive that the reality (for him) of the cross- cultural work role is different from what he expected. The role be- haviors that are formally outlined (prescriptions), the reports on the behaviors actually performed (descriptions), the ideas and anticipations that others have about the appr0priate behaviors in the role (expectations) 9 and his self— expectations all are involved. To the extent that there is general agreement among these, we expect men to carry out their missions with a minimum of stress and frustration. But to the extent that what a man does conflicts with what he has been told to do, what others expect of him, or what he wants or expected to do, we can expect difficulties and dis satisfactions to arise. . In this section we explore, first, how the behaviors differed from the men's own expectations, and, then, thefactors associated with these differences--the administrative context, perceptions of host country attitudes, and the influence of other persons. How Roles Differ from Expected. Most of the mendescribe their principal role abroad as a technician-adviser. However, ten served in other capacities, eight as administrators and two‘as teachertrainers. 26 Nine report major changes in their roles during the tour. These in= clude changes in administrative duties, of geographic location, and from advising to teaching. More significantly, half of the group say that the duties and activities in which they engaged were somewhat to radically different from expectations. The balance report their work was about as expected or that they did not know what to expect. Activities differ from expectations principally in these ways, with some men mentioning more than one difference: Greater in scope, duties, responsibilities 13 Technical work outside own specialty 7 Administrative rather than technical 8 Had to develop job 5 These comments illustrate the various categories: GREATER SCOPE "I had expected to be doing specific techniques in the motion picture field, such as specific editing techniques. But the work turned out to be much more comprehensive, including writing, directing, selecting music, dubbing, etc. For all practical purposes, I was running the film unit. " ”I actually headed a program rather than serving as an adviser. This conflicted with the opinions of my immediate superior, and with some of the directives from Washington. But failure to control these activities is the major problem that I had seen in other projects. The best liked man in came back after three tours, always praising the nationals for what they were doing, and he did not accomplish anything. " TECHNICAL WORK OUTSIDE SPECIALTY . AB expected to work on development of aptitude tests; in— stead he became co-director of a labor servicio, labor advisor to the USOM, and in charge of the labor participant training program. 27 AL expected to work on housing planning, but was dis- appointed to learn that ICA did not look with favor upon planning; hence whatever he didin this area was under cover, with his principal work being to provide technical assistance on anaided self-help housing program, ADMINISTRATIVE RATHER THAN TECHNICAL ”I was told that I was going out as a statistician to aid the nationals. From the first day, they were so Shorthanded that they pressed me into service for the‘USOM. It was only indirectly that I got to work with the people in the host government; in order to evaluate some of the statistics we used in the missionwehad to improve them . . . this gave me a chance to work with the technical people in the country. " HAD TO DEVELOP JOB "I heard peOple frequently comment: 'Well, you're re— cruited; you come to the post; you look around, and after a while you make a job for yourself. ' It seemed to me that the general view among ICA'ers was that this is the right way. " Those men who were "lone wolves, " the only American in their field present in the work situation, reacted differentially: Five did not like this, seven. liked it, and ten; had mixed emotions. "I had good'and bad feelings about being a lone wolf. It had its advantages in that it inflates your ego; but it's bad from a technical view and from one's own personal development .. .. . you need an interchange of ideas with people in your fieldto keep yourself abreast and alert. This was difficult to do with-Latin -American colleagues. ” "There were no predecessors, and. no successors . . . no one tocheck on me. . I felt this was desirable and directly re- lated to my success. I hadremarkably wide latitude to operate and make-my own decisions. " Another way in which the activity expectations differ or arfeinflu-a' encedis the man's location in the organization, i. e. , American, host, or some combination of these. - Each kind of organizational location had its particular role problems: 28 YY, transferring into ICA from a contract operation in the country, had -les 5 freedom: "After transferring from a contract operation to ICA direct hire, I had less freedom. They told me not to teach; I had to be careful of what I did as I was now more of an official repre- sentative of the U. S. government. They threatened me twice with a negative rating for doing or trying to do the kinds of things I would have done under the contract. " Another, with offices at the technical level in both the American and host organizations, had problems as a fishery expert in an agri- cultural group. In addition, being fluent in one of the local languages, he was a factor in upsetting hierarchial relations between the embassy and the US OM: ”I was of the impression that in the agricultural division at least they had never had an animal quite like me. They. didn't quite see me in the role'I was put into by circumstances. Since I got out in the country quite frequently [necessary part of his duties] and spoke French and? soon sufficient local language for some purposes, I got some rather interesting field reports that went up to the ambassador. Then the ambassadorchanged . . . and soon after he came, - I was asked to keepia Sunday free to take a trip with him around the country. This didn't go down so well with the mission people. " Those located in the host organization tend to lose touch with the USOM and develop feelings of being left out of things, as this agri- cultural economist: . "When I accepted the job, I thought I would be the only one there in my field; but three others (Americans) got involved. - One of these had his office right next to the head of the agri— cultural group and all the time I was there I never got to the USOM for counsel or advice. Also, this man attended many of the meetings in the host organization and I was left out. " When you are out in the field, 300 miles from the capitol, .as was this agricultural engineer, you have the choice of doing what the host government wants you to do or taking a firm personal stand. on what you will do: “minukafimL 29 "I did not really know how the American and host organi» zations got together on policy or Operating matters. This used to bother me and I got caught in the wringer here. Each person had his mind made up on what was to be done, and what you would do. The host government had me running around on field trips without consulting me, and the places where I was sent expected me to solve all their problems in 2 days. " Two went abroad as program support specialists, a trainee desig— nation. As such, they were carried on the ICA/Washington budget and assigned to a mission with the expectation that they would experience a range of duties. One of the men so assigned spent most of his tour doing routine administrative reports for the mission director, the other, as he describes it, “lived in the bush“ for months on end: "I was sent over as a support specialist, but that program was abolished 3 months after I entered it. I really don't think I was ever told what my duties were going to be. When I first arrived, the deputy agricultural officer said that Washington had more orless pushed me off onto them. He told me to go out into the field and work with-a technician who‘was ill, and perhaps learn something and help him out. The man was returned to the states after finishing the field work and I inherited the job of writing up his report. After this was finished, another technician heard that I was in the country and asked me to be assigned to his survey team. " Obviously, some men experience changes in the role prescriptions. They are told about and expect duties and responsibilities of one kind but different prescriptions emerge upon or after their‘arrival. -A main factor contributing to such changes is the administrative context of technical assistance, which we explore in the next section. The Administrative Context. Requests for personnel to fill techni- cal assistance positions arise within‘a country in a process of program development involving American and usually host country officials. These requests, translatedinto job titles, job descriptions, and other Specifications, go to ICA/Washington. This organizationrecruits, selects, briefs, and dispatches persons for the designatedfield positions. 30 Months, sometimes a year or more, elapse from the time the field requests a specialist and he arrives. During this time, major changes or turnovers may take place in the mission personnel, in the host government, and in‘ICA/Washington. New peeple define the‘prob- lems and needs differently; the social, economic, or political situation changes. The expectations of the host nationals, and even of the Americans in the country, vary widely with respect to new, previously unfilled positions; in the case of replacements, the behavior and per— formance of the predecessor shape the nationals' expectations. Three cases, drawn from thesame country, illustrate some of the variables: FF went out originally as anICA contractor employee. No arrangements. had been made for his coming. rMany of the ~USOM people who had worked with the survey that formed the basis for the contract were no longer there. The neW'mission personnel were not receptive to the contract arrangement. After 6 months, the contract project manager was recalledand the contract terminated. The USOM asked‘FF to. continue his work as a direct hire employee. .FF feels that the host govern:= ment had not requested the work originally but only had agreed to accept the contract. Consequently, there was no c00peration from government officials, who felt that the country was not yet ready for this type of work. When JJ arrived, he expected to belthe junior member of a team working with one of the ministries. The senior; member had not yet arrived, so the USOM director assigned JJ tointernal duties within the mission, includingbeing training officer for a period. . It was 1%- years before heactually got involved in the work for which he was employed. . DD, the fishery expert, said no one in the USOM could tell him about his work other than his- predecessor who, while well-liked, was a specialist in another. field-and hadformulated the program differently than DD would have. DD made himself fairly autonomous from the mission and worked with nationals at variouslevels. He found their expectations varied from none to resisting research, something he pressed. actively. - In this study, half of the positions had been filled previously; eight predecessors were still there; three posts were filled by acting persons; the balance had been vacant for periods ranging from 3 months Of the seventeen new positions, two had been to more than a year. vacant for 18 months prior to the arrival of the respondent; five had been unfilled for a year. The others did not know how long the positions had existed on paper before their'arrival. Other factors which con- Perceptions of Host Country Attitudes. tribute to the technician's definition of the situation in which he finds himself are his perceptions of the host government's interests in technical assistance and whether the nationals agree‘about,,w11y he is there. Both perceptions frequently conflict with his before=arrival expectations. . Twenty- eight men believe that officials of the host country had accepted technical assistance to get economic aid or to achieve other objectives. . In other words, assistance was the-unwantedpart of a larger "package. ” These comments are typical: . “I felt that the technicians were being’rammed down their The personal and social relationships were good, but throats. ' on working relationships you ran into a solid wall. " ”I felt that educational technical assistance was not what the country wanted but what the USOM_ wantedto give them. This probably affected my work-less than others since 'I was working in urban areas, and these tendedto ask for the kind of The rural. areas wanted buildings. " help ‘I couldgive. Eleven of these men believe the- "package deal" concept affected their work to some extent;another six say it had a significant negative For example: ‘ “You were much more popular if you had money to spend. I also felt that the absence of a counterpart was related to this. They could see‘a tractor, but it was hard for them to see the influenc e . help that you gave them in. improved statistics. " 32 "'They thought they wanted industrial development, but they did not have the capacity to immediately embrace any sort of industrial program. They wanted things . . . they didn't know why, and they wouldn’t know what to do with them if they had them. " But more than a third of the twenty-eight who had observed that the host country had accepted technical assistance to get something else feel that the host government and the nationals "really wanted" them and their particular technical contribution: there Some "Although technical assistance was looked upon generally as part of a package, in this case it was desired. The host government at one point offered to keep Americans on the payroll rather than have a contract operation terminate. They accepted us as individuals and believed in what we were trying to do. " "I personally found that they were more interested in technical assistance and advice thanin money; this made my work much easier.- " Eight men report conflict among nationals as to why they were and two others feel there was neither agreement or conflict. conflicts are ideological, as in this case. "Because Of political reasons, it was always difficult if not impossible to get agreement or a positive statement from anyone about doing something; there were Communist-influenced people and American-influencedpeople; the nationals' ownphil— os0phic approach to. life leads them to not take stands on one side of any issue or ‘another--they agree with everything you say, but deep down they may not. .Conflicts also existed between the colonials and Americans; the colonial officials were entrenched in the ministry and had their own views on what should be done, and by whom. " Other conflicts seem to be based on misinformation or lack of * information; "The head of the department appeared tohave a fairly good concept of why I was there, but the heads of the divisions seemed to be confused. The head of the department carried out 33 my decisions without consulting the division chiefs; they didn’t know why I was there, or what I was supposed to do. 1 I hadto win their confidence and interest. " "They were bewildered; they didn't know what I was talking about, or what I was trying to do. They askedrfor us, but they didn't have the foggiest notion of what we were. " These perceptions of host interests and conflicts not only shatter men‘s expectations but probably generate much—of the criticisms they direct at the characteristics and behavior othost nationals in the work context. Whether he applies for or is "recruited” for the position, he hears "howbadly the country needs someone of his ability and experience. " Whether or not he is told. about theattitudes or receptivity of the nationals, he tends to assume that they, too, eagerly await him. Withlong lapses of time between initiation of a personnel request and arrival of the technician, persons and attitudes may change. Moreover, the typical American professional man usuallylikes tomove forward, to build on his past progress and attainments, to make each new'project better than the last. When he finds that this is not possible abroad, he may resist. compromises in technOIOgical approaches or in levels of performance. It is easier to lay the blame for what he perceives as sub-professional performance on the nationals and their organization than upon himself. In some instances, as noted with AH (page 47) the‘American technician perceives the total situation as com- pletely lacking the prerequisites for the kind of technical assistance he expected to render . Influence of Other Persons. After arriving in the host country, other people helpstructure the reality of the situationfor the American technician. Some of these add to or change the role prescriptions, most of them hold role expectations, and, in many ways, they influence the technician's perception of the role, the problems, and appropriate activities. These persons include members of the American and host , Us..- 34 organizations, sometimes Americans. or. host nationals outside the work organization, predecessor technicians, and sometimes counter- parts (host nationals assigned to work with the Americans). Just as the men expect an apparently rationally conceived Washington organization to be staffed with rational, competent people who outline fully what the jobs would be, similar expectations about the organization abroad (the UnitedStates Operations Mission) accompany them overseas. ~ One out of two identify the principal mis- sion personnel as the sources of information about the position after arrival. Ten mentionhost national and nine refer to their own observ- ations as the primary ways of gettinginformation. They tend to dis— tinguish; "learning about the work" from “learning about the job, " with sixteen saying that going to work on one's own was the-principal way to accomplish the latter. . Eleven say they talked with other people and made their own observations, and. six worked with the predecessor or other Americans. rWhen asked to identify the Americans most important to them in helping clarify their duties and responsibilities, they mention these categories in the frequencies noted: Category of Americans Frequency of Mention Technical and support 17 -' Policy level 14 ' Clerical 1 Outside. of USOM 4 None 3 Those who availed themselves of Americans outside the organi- zationhad been in educational work prior to going abroad, and threeof the four were on their first tour. Two of the four were basedin the same country, but one was some 300miles out in the bush. and. the only non-national in the village, and the other in the capitol city. -He com- ments: 35 "The American counterparts in foundations and private industry proved to be fine partners; plus those in UN, UNESCO, WHO and the Fulbright people. I counseled with persons who had competence and experience with problems. The Americans in the country were highly competent and found we were in partnership. " In the fourth case, after serving several years in two other countries, the person was transferred to a third. Here he perceived the mission personnel as not being interested in technical assistance but solely in— terested in giving away money. Consequently, he turned to Americans outside the organization, chiefly American businessmen. Americans name these categories of nationals as being most im- portant in helping to clarify what they were to do: Category of National 1 Frequency of Mention Technical level 19 Middle and top level policy 10 Nationals employed by USOM or by servicio 5 Nationals outside of host government (i. e. , educators) 4 State, provincial officials l Predecessors. Data about the activities and influence of pre- decessors (or incumbents) are inconclusive. Thirteen had predecessors; in eight instances the predecessor was still on the job when the respondent arrived; in two cases the respondent talked with the predecessor before leaving the states; in three cases, other people in the organization were "acting" in the position in addition to other duties. The extent of overlap in the eight cases varied from four months to two years. Eight persons feel there are particular advantages in having the Predecessor present, while five describe specific disadvantages, Particularly as the length of overlap increases. The overlap creates ambiguity as to who is filling the position; the respondents feel they aCCIUired all of the enemies as well as some of the friends of the pre- deCessors, and they were hesitant to introduce new ideas: 36 "My predecessor had hoped to stay in the job; he was unhappy to leave. We hada 6-month overlap, and this confused the nationals. Some nationals had accepted my predecessor so completely that they were reluctant to switchand work with me. They had become used to his daily habits, for instance, such as the time of day he was likely to come around. Also, my pre= decessor was a clinician, and the nationals were oriented to clinical methods by the colonial doctors; I stressed basic science, and they tended to see this as not as important.- " "I replaced a man who had been there about 14 years; just what they expected me to do, I'm not too1 sure. 1 He had- a con- siderable number of devoted friends in the government; and to be honest, I don‘t think'l was ever really accepted as his replace-1 ment. He spoke the language well, and I didn't. " “I was recruited to replace a training officer and was able to sit at his side for 2 months to learn the job. The predecessor hadapplied for a second tour but had been turned down and ICA was trying to retire him against his wishes. With the extended overlap, any feelings that the missionpeople had against him tended to rub off onto me. ” Eight say the principal things they tried to learnfrom their predecessors were linked to the people-and relationships involved in carrying out the work, as did this person: "’I tried to learn what was our’policy about things and in dealing with specific agencies inthe host government. What is our attitude toward individual personalities ? 1 What subjects are various persons interested in? When we go to the cocktail party, should I speak of women or of animals ? What about the internal problems of the mission? ” Nine say they had to take the initiative in seeking informa-tion'and guidance from the predecessor; three indicate the initiative was shared; in only one case, did the predecessor take the initiative. . Approximately half of those who took over on-going work mention PI‘Oblems which they attribute‘to this: ."I had to clean up a mess . . . a terriblemess, the worst I had ever seen. The records were in badshape, themorale was 37 bad, and there was no control over expenditures. They were buying anything a technician would requisition. " "He had gone on record with so many proposals it had given the nationals a big buildup on forthcoming funds; this left the government in a state of expectation and disappointment. " Counterparts. Less clear than the influence of predecessor is that Of the host national "counterpart" in helping the American clarify what he will do. There is animplicit assumption in most technical assistance that the American specialist will work extremely close with or through one or more nationals whom the host government officially appoints or designates as counterparts. What is not obvious is exactly how this is accomplished, and what expectations either the host govern- ment or the appointed individual hold as to how the role is to be per- formed. .In this study, twenty-four men had official counterparts; in six cases they say they never worked withtor through these. . In eighteen cases, the respondents feel that the counterparts had been. sodesignated because Of the positions they held; in the other cases they are not sure. 1 Reasons for not working with officially named counterparts include: "Not qualified"; "became politically involved andhad to flee the country,- " and a "good time; Charlie who was not really interested. " Respondents estimate that nineteen Of the twenty—four official counter- parts were high in influence and ability: ‘ "Until he was kicked out, my counterpart was very influ- ential; he had the equivalent of a M.A. from the national police academy, hada fine sense of humor, was? an outstanding [host national]. " "My counterpart had-a major influence on Operations; he hadstarted the program and was running; it. He had a master’s degree from Wisconsin; although he had shortcomings as an administrator, he was friendly, an. extrovert, and we had close relationships. “ 38 "Working withhim was like trying to hold a handful of quicksilver. He ‘would steal you blind for his program, but not for himself. He was not a typical national, Now‘and then, , you had to stand and hammer on his desk and declare how things were going to be. " Each Of the twenty—four technicians who had an Official counter- part estimated how he thought his counterpart would describe him, 1Nine had no idea of what his counterpart would say or what he thought; eight mentioned favorable personal and professional qualities; three favorable personal qualities only; two favorable professional attributes only, and two negative professional and personal traits. . Nine respondents admit they had unofficial counterparts, while many Of the others indicate that they had sought out and developed close working relationships with from two or three tO as many as ten different ' people in their field for at least some period of their tour: "My counterpart was inspector Of fisheries, but I soon came to realize that he was not going to be very useful. 1 He was an older man with a heart condition who wanted nothing somuch as not to rock the boat. 150"]: got myself some active, unofficial counterparts. 1 As these nationals go, they were very good, some were open-minded, eager to learn, and interested. - Frequently one Of these would goon a trip-with me; when you drive for a day or two in a jeep, drink beer together, and put upa tent, you get to know people . . . if you makean effort to work in their language." "It was never clearly defined as to what he was responsible for as my counterpart; it tOOk me several weeks to discover, by accident, that he was my counterpart. _ He was a gay blade, Spent about four-fifths of the time drinking beer, one-fifth working. He had very little influence. 1 Later, I found an unofficial counter- part with whom «I spent one hour a week regularly. Everyone respected him, and I frequently checked things with him by telephone. " 1 Other comments Of the men reveal additional dimensions of the Subtle relationship problems. Some worked-around or behindthe counterpart: 39 "'He hadaulot of influenceu-a big shot in the organization; he was very smart, an extensive traveler, oninternational com- mittees, well known, and trained at Johns Hopkins. But he was dogmatic, and used to irritate me. - I had to .maneuver things I wanted done so that he couldn't interfere with them. 1 He was not a good administrator; he couldn't delegate authority. " "After the first year, I'm not sure I knew where the hell I was going.. Sidetracking would be done by my counterpartyl was trying to push him ahead to a point where he could run the show. - I probably pushed him tOO fast from standpoint of wanting him to take over. But I thought one Of the Objectives of ICA was to work yourself out of a job as soon as practicable. When'I had my data together for writing a country plan, I had sufficient leave that I would never use, so I took leave and stayed home and wrote the country plan. This way I wasn't bothered with other things, and my counterpart was in the office handling the routine things. " With this background on what men expect, how they develop these expectations, and the factors that tend to shatter expectations, we analyze the level of satisfaction the men in this sample derived from their tours. Level Of Satisfaction with the Tour Weasked: ' "As best you can now recall, how did, you-feel generally about this tour of duty-at: the‘time you leftICA? ',' Mensel'ect'ed their response from one Of five alternatives (see Table 5), Table 5. Level Of general satisfaction. Responses 1Num_ber Extremely satisfied Generally satisfied Moderately satisfied Generally unsatisfied 1 Extremely unsatisfied u-P-Noo-qoo 40 A little more thanhalf (18) testify that they were satisfied with their tour and. little less than half (16) report mild or extreme dis sati sfac ti on. , As a further refinement of satisfaction, we alsoasked: . ”In terms of your expectations when entering on this tour, how;would you say things worked out for you?" They selected responses from among five alternatives (see Table 6)‘. Table 6. -Extent to which expectations were fulfilled. m ;— 1 Responses ' Number Far better than expected Generally better than expected About as expected Generally worse than expected 1 Far worse than expected hP-hPOOON Again, about half report that their expectations had beenmet or exceededandthe otherhalf feel their expectations had not been. met. Table 7 reflects the unsurprisingfinding that satisfaction is highly related to the extent to which expectations were met. Table 7. Level of satisfaction compared withlevel Of expectation fulfillment. Expectation-Fulfillment i Satisfaction ‘ Total Yes . 'NO About as, and better than expected 11 5 16 Worse and-far worse than expected 7 ll 18 - 41 The correlation between satisfaction and expectation fulfillment sup— ports the earlier Civil Service Commission study of 1, 000 overseas employees. 1 In that case, satisfaction with-an overseas assignment was partly related to the degree to which expectations and motives, whatever their nature, were fulfilled or satisfied: ‘ "While any one of an assortment Of‘motivations may be conducive to good adjustment in overseas employment, poor adjustment may result from these same motivations if the employee's expectations in the matter are frustrated. "I But with more than a third Of the respondents in this study deviat- ing from the satisfaction— expectation correlation, we need to examine these cases more closely. , High Satisfaction-Low Expectation Fulfillment. Analysis of this category is difficult in that three Of the seven had prior experience abroad. .For these three their low expectation fulfillment seems associ- ated with an inability to accomplish what they had anticipated and, particularly in the case of one person, conflict with the administrative policies and personnel Of ICA. Despite these conflicts, the men per- ceive themselves as effective and developed relationships they found satisfying. Eachof the three deve10ped specific expectations. growing out of the previous experience. ICA transferred one man from a similar post in a neighboring country at the end Of his first 2-year-tour. He in- terpreted this to mean completion Of the probationary period. . In his new post he inherited a program he described as ”wild, wasteful, and alittle less than stupid. " He found a consultant service contract operating with three consultants ”not qualified and not needed at the time. " He recommended cancelling of two-thirds of the consultant 1Civil Service Commission, p. 58. .42 contract, was commended by the mission director for his planning, but was subsequently terminated "without cause. " Another man, employedin the country by. an ICA contractor, transferred to the "direct hire" staff Of ICA. While he was able to .con— tinuemost of his previous associations and work, he found the adminis- trative control less desirable than in his former status. - The third person (whose prior experience had been with another government as a consultant), spoke the local language and enjoyed his professional work. .He did not expect tobecome- as involved-in the administrative aspects Of the American organization abroad and felt the nationals resented the time he spent in the USOM. - For the four *men in this category without prior experience, their low expectation fulfillment seems to be associated withfaulty assump- tions on their part, although in each case the content Of the assumptions differs. _. One man, in accepting a positionin the Caribbean, assumed he was going to “something like an exoticSouthSea island, " and was sur- prised tO find the nationals to be" English- speaking Negroes, "practically no different from; Americans. ” Despite this shock to his expectations, he» liked both the work and the social life available to him. . Another took the overseas job to escape a boring, frustrating office job in ~Washington, . D- C. ,. and hoping that the tension and-friction which had been building up between him and‘hiswife for some 15 years might be reduced. - He found the work exciting, but the marital problems accentuated and endedin divorce. 1 The thirdcase went abroad expecting to establishand Operate a radio isotope laboratory in agronomic research. -He found neither equipment available nor the people sufficiently. trained-for the work he expected to do. While waiting 20- months for equipment to arrive, he ”looked around to see what useful things 'I might do. " He tr'aveledthe I11,“ (it 43 country, trained people to use the laboratory, and investigated agronomic problems that interested him. The fourth-case in going abroad as a training Officer-assumed that the field mission would be as concerned about evaluation of the training Operation as the staff in the Washington headquarters. This was not the case. In addition, he had an extended overlapwith his predecessor who did not want to leave. 1 Over the 2-year tour, however, he felt that he succeeded in getting the training job'modified to something more than "paper pushing. " LowSatisfaction-High Expectation Fulfillment. Of the five in this class, three had no previous experience abroad, while the other two had worked for'ICA in other countries immediately prior to transfer to the tours on which they reported. Their dis satisfactions grew out of their criticisms Of or disappointments withICA as an organization. This in= cludedlack of administrative planning, inability to get along with a superior, and failure Of a trainee role to materialize intoa regular assignment. Weexamine the factors associated with high satisfaction-high expectation fulfillment and. low satisfaction-low expectationfulfillment in the following section on the correlates Of general satisfaction. Correlates Of General Satisfaction As the data in Table 8 indicate, the major predictor of general satis— faction is whether the man had-previous experience abroad. Of the twenty-two-who had not worked-abroad before, ten are highly satisfied andfive are extremely satisfied. 10f the twelve who had worked-abroad, only one is extremely satisfied and six. are extremely dissatisfied. The striking relationship betweenhigh expectation. fulfillment and high satisfaction becomes more pronounced when we consider the one 44 Table 8. Relationship between prior overseas experience and general satisfaction. General Satisfaction ”Prior Overseas Experience Total NO ‘Yes Very high 10 l . 11 Very low 5 6 11 (Mixed) (7) (5) (12) Total 22 12 34 person in this group who appears in the" "previous experience abroad" column. His tour continued a position which he had established and held in the same country two years earlier. .Analysis Of some individual cases helps to identify the range of factors that; interact in influencinglevels of expectation fulfillment and satisfaction. .In so doing, we seek answers to the underlyingquestion: ‘ "Why do 'first tour 5' seem to produce satisfaction and 'later'tours' not so much? " ' LowSatisfaction-Low Expectation-Fulfillment. .The negative feel- ings Of the five without previous experience are closely associated with the same factors as those in the low satisfaction-high expectationfulfill- ~ment group, i. e. , dissatisfaction with administrativematters. 1 Two of the men, JJ‘ and ZZ, were assigned toadministrative work within the mission rather than to the technical posts anticipated. A third, , BB, went abroadas a trainee but was not wanted by the mission. - Hewas assigned to a survey crewin the bushcountry. . Both TT anthJ, were extremely critical Of the administrative procedures ~=by which they had been recruitedand assigned as well as by the frustrations the system created-for them abroad. TT, who was located in a remote village, 45 became quite ill near the end of his tour, while AJ resigned and paid his own way back to the States. The other six cases, with previous overseas experience, contribute significantly tO an understanding Of the issuesand problems associated with cross-cultural technical assistance. -Four Of the six had worked for ICA in other countries; another had been abroad on a foundation project, and the fifth with another agency of the United States government. We suggest at least four explanations as to why previous Overseas experience may result in shattered expectations and/or extreme dissatis— factions in a subsequent tour. One possibility is that a decision to accept another overseas assignment undoubtedly grows out of awprevious satis= factory experience abroad. -The subsequent tour may fail to 'measure up for a variety of reasons. The fact that ten of the twentyatwo first tour persons in this study report both positive expectationrealization and high satisfaction, plus seven others who are either positive or high, lends support to this thesis. Another explanation is that, having experiencedthe complex task Of learning a language, customs, culture, and ways of doing business for one or more countries, a person becomes reluctant to get so involved again. . This could be particularly true if he had witnessed other Americans abroad who. seemed to-"'get by" without going to as much trouble as he did to learn the things that would contribute tO- success andsatisfaction. - Montgomery describes a third possibility asdifferentiatedculture 3332131 By this he means that most any American can eventually make the adjustments necessary from the American culture and way of life to work and live successfully inCountry A. This does not prepare him, however, for what he is likely to experience intmoving from CountryA to CountryB; having learned to get along in Country. A is no guarantee lJohn.D.. Montgomery, ”Cros sing the Culture” Bars. ” Unpublished paper, November, 1960. 46 that he can do this successfully inB. Infact, the very illusion, based onCountry A experience, i that he now knows how to work abroad may be his most serious mistake. Another possibility takes into account that the passage of time brings changes in health, family status, income needs, and motivations. Any or all of these may influence a man's response to‘a tour. The Cir- cumstances of these four of the six cases suggest these and other possibilities: AC reports a highly successful, extremely satisfactory experience for 4 years in Country A where he was based, not in the USOM, but within the host country as adviser to one of the principal ministers. Most of the people with whom he worked directly spoke English. Then he was transferred to Country B to a job he understood had similar objectives. But this job was in Latin America, a different continent, where practically no one but other North Americans spoke English, and the position was located in a servicio, a combination‘United States=host govern- ment type organization. In addition, he replaced a man who had been in the post for 14 years. About this situation, he says, ”On my previous assignment, there was a country agreement between the'U-nited States andCountry A. I used this as the basis for my approach in-Country B. ” And later in the inter- view, "I doubt if I had much influence in Country B; this is a reversal compared with'A. " ‘55 represents the extreme example. With some 10 years experience working for ICA infive other Latin‘Ame‘rican countries, heaccepted a new position in-a sixth country in the same area. Here his role ‘was chiefly one of helping to establish and imple- ment major policies with one of theministries, instead of the field work which hevpreferred to do and had done in the other countries. After a year, he felt noprogress was being .made toward establishing the new policy so he decided to leave. CC and-AF had prior experience-with foreign operations other than ICA. Both found that the operation andadministration . ;‘ of technical assistance a "disappointing, disillusioning" experience. No job had deve10ped for CC after 9-months in the‘country, and ICA returned him to the‘States. AF served as ”acting“ executive officer under six different directors and acting directors of the 47 mission. In his final 3 months, the-latest director-demoted‘him after he clashed with thedirector's wife over activities involv- ing wives of theICA staff. In addition to these possibilities, we can speculate that issues such‘as these-areassociated withprior experience: (a) Prior experi— ences make men more critical; they develop an expanded base for making judgments and acquire different kinds of "significant others"; (b) those-with experience perceive themselves as better qualified to judge the behavior of others; also, as no longer strangers within‘ICA, they are more critical and more willing to speak; (c) as experienced persons, they expect different or preferential treatment; (d) some re-= turn to overseas employment because of limited employment opportuni= ties in the United States, or the opportunities they have are less attractive than abroad because of salary or' lack of professional challenge; and (e) as‘a special case of differentiated culture error (operating out of awareness), the prior experience is-associated with extremely satis- fying personal relationships, but the style and expectations associated with these are carried over and do not necessarily ”fit" in a new country. . High-Satisfaction-High Expectation Fulfillment. Ten of the eleven men in this category did not have'prior overseas experience (see'Table 8). The countries in which they were based represented all six geographic areas included in the study. Two of these ten cases report "extreme satisfaction-far better than-expected. " We now review these ~two in detail to gain some understanding of why men tend to respond favorably to fir st tours . ( AH illustrates the issue under consideration in twodi- mensions. His-initial tour abroad, and‘his only full tour, was in a country of Europe where he-went asa’special consultant in economic deve10pment to work withaproductivity center that had been established by the host government using largely'ICA funds. When he‘completed this assignment, he was transferred to a regular ICA position with a USOM in the‘Near‘East. 48 Upon'arrival, he reacted negatively to what heaperceived asultra-primitiveconditions, uncivilized people, a country totally unpreparedfor technical assistance, andxa situation lacking the prerequisites to use what he had to offer. 1 A Within 3 months, he‘subm-itted his resignation. While‘waiting .for this to be processed, he contracted a serious illness. Because of the circumstances, AH definedas his last and only full tour of duty abroad the Zyears spent in Europe; there- fore, his‘European experience is the basis of the interviewand the referent of his favorablereactions. AH, hired at the salary grade of FSR-Z, feels the‘job to which he was assigned had been accurately portrayed‘and pro- vided him with a great deal of freedom to act. His ties to the ICA headquarters in the country were minimal and his; instruc= tions: ' "We've hired you and are paying you a big salary; we expect you todetermine what you are to do. " 'As a consequence, all of his wor~k=related interaction was with-nationals whom he saw as cooperative but not too knowledg= able in what he was trying to accomplish. ~ As he describes it, "I moved ahead in‘a positive 'way, . with'American techniques and EurOpean politeness andfinesse, respecting small, personal thingslike titles and-familiarities. " His work, as he carried it out, wasprimarily one-of per-=- forming personally what he thought “needed to be done. " He wrote brochures and arranged for printing and distribution. He contacted American industries; he visitedprovincial and city officials enlisting their enthusiasm and support for industrial promotion, and personally promoted the establishment of the first industrial park inthecountry: "I had todo-most of the work; the nationals were unable to carry on without close direction and constant prodding; " 'His work With the nationals was facilitated by his knowledge of the language whichrapidly improved, and by the two nationals assigned to workwfor or underhim in such ways as he desired. One of thesehad previously worked for other Americans. These'and. the officials with whom'heworkedfin the government were all well-educated men, most having doctoral degrees. .. . ,q y 1We Can contrast AH's reactionto the‘Near East country with the experiences of two-other men, both of whom talked at length‘of their pleasant experiences and effective work in this same country. lyl I [.1 lllll iu L: I iir .llivlii [illitli .I I? . 49 AH was particularly enthusiastic about the; opportunities to enjoy the cultural arts and to cultivate his taste for fine win-es. He wrote articles about thevlocal wines for various-magazines, and for some of his social affairs, "instead of cocktail parties, I gave wine-tasting parties. " PP, , aimedwical doctor, went abroad as a’FSR-Z from a state department of public health position. He did not‘know what to expect other than he was to head a division of public health and preventive medicine which would work in some capacity with the‘National Health Service of the country. The situation was relatively undefined; a previous servicio arrangement had been terminated and the position had been occupied for one year by a non-medical man who had been dismissed. At thesame time PP came in as head, three other pro— fessional people were alsoassigned to his office. These, along with some twenty fairly well trained nationals inherited from the servicio, constituted his Operations staff. Under-his direction, the job rapidly developed into a liaison between the mission, the embassy, the health-service, and the medical and health organi- zations of the country. In addition, _ he served as medical officer for the embassy, and medical consultant for the mission. He be=- came much more intimately associated with the medical schools and the school of public health than he had anticipated. . His duties varied widely and brought him intocontact with both Americans and nationals at many levels and with many; interests. He was simultaneously an adviser, a teacher, anadministrator, and a practicing physician. The nationals with whom he worked most closely were generally fluent in English-(hence lack of language was not a serious problemfor him), andmost werewell-educated inthe vmedical field, eitherin the United States or‘ Europe. PP says, "I refused to befrustrated by the nationals. " His principal frustrations originated in the mission-and in‘ICA/ Washington and related to delays and postponements in getting clearances, materials, and budget approvals. He feelsithat‘the miss-ion director was not interested in his project and comments "I often wondered if I might not have been better off if I didn't deal with the'Americans‘at all. " Unlike'AH, he did not particularly enjoy social affairs and saw many of theolocal customsas inter- fering with the work routine. But similar to AH, he was'interested in introducing American technology andAmerican approaches in solving technical problems. 50 Comparison of these two cases suggests that at least these factors are associated with highlevels of satisfaction on "first tours": l.- If the position and duties cannot be accurately described and this is admitted, expectations remain somewhat unstructured. AH expected to find what he found; PP did not know what to expect; both were satisfied. 2. The amount of leeway both'Americans and nationals give an American abroad to define his work and activities depends, in part, on the nature of his specialty. If it is a speciality new or rare to the country, or if it is a speciality to which laymen characteristically defer, he will have more freedom. AH was an economic consultant, a field not repre= sented in the mission, and new to the country; PP was a physician, a profession to which outsiders tend to defer. 3. When the specialist abroad has ability (language or otherwise) and administrative opportunity to deveIOpC‘lose working associations with the nationals, he will be less concerned with and perhaps'less frustrated by the‘American organization. AH by virtue of organizational arrangements, local language ability, and being assigned two nationals to work under him operated independently of ICA; PP, because of the undefined nature of his position and his own perceptions of what would be most useful, quickly developed liaison-activities with the‘American= educated deans and directors of themedical schools and government departments concerned with health. In addition, he had a trained staff of some 20 nationals. 4. American specialists generally are better prepared and more experienced in performing technical operations thanin advising or teaching others howto do them; further, they gain satisfactionout of demonstrating to themselves'and others what they'are capableof produc= ing. AH admits that he did most of the work rather than advising or teaching others; in his wide range of duties, PP had opportunity to do 51 almost anything that would please him, including rendering medical aidas a practicing physician. 5. Both of the men were near the top in salary grade, assuring them- of adequate income, preferred status, and greater‘access to high officials in both governments. 6. Both men were in country situations not too radically different from the‘United States; their cultural naivete did them little harm and perhaps made the experience seem more pleasant. Summary 1. Some men prefer job situations withwsecurity and clear state- ment of duties; more, however, want freedom to‘approach their work on a professional basis. A Three-fourths of those wanting freedom hold advanced degrees. Those wanting security arealso more‘likely to specify the area of the world in which they would accept assignment. 2.. - Information obtained principally from program people in ICA/Washington and to a lesser extent from personnel. people and-from reading contribute to men's expectations. ‘Nine of the twelve with prior experience abroad say they found the new situation about the same to-somewhat different from expected. When expectations did not materialize, they tend to associate this withproblems in the adminis- trative process. - . 3. Conflicts between role prescriptions, and self-expectations led to- shattered expectations and dissatisfactions with some. Half say their jobs were somewhat to radically different from expected, differ-ing in these ways: Broader or narrower technical area; necessity todirect * and operate rather than advise; technical work outside or beyond the man's-immediate speciality; administrative rather thantechnical duties, and necessity to develop one's own job. 52 4. The administrative process of recruiting, selecting, briefing, andassigning personnelv-With the lapses of time and changes in policy, personnel, and procedures usually. involved--frequently leads to changes in role-prescriptions and expectations. 5., Most respondents believe the host country had acceptedtechni- cal assistance in order to obtain other objectives. About half of the men feel this attitude affected their work, although more thana third believe the host government and nationals "really wanted" what they had to contribute .. 6. Americans name persons at the technical level in boththeir ownand host organizations as helping them determine their jobs and how they would do them. Where there were predecessors, the new man generally took the initiative in learning from the man he was succeeding; extended periods of overlap led to newproblems. Some Americans ignored or avoided their official counterparts‘and developed working relationships with; ”unofficial counterparts. " 7.1 Level of satisfaction and. level of expectation fulfillment are positively correlated; a high level in one category generally associates witha high‘level in the other. 8. High expectation fulfillment and high satisfaction generally associate with first tours, while half of the men with-prior experience abroad report low expectation fulfillment and low satisfaction. C HAPT ER III FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH WORK PERFORMANCE IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE As a first step toward identifying how men perceive they perform on their jobs abroad and the influence of certain factors on their be- havior, we asked them to rate how well they performed in the tour under study. Assuming that most men are aware of how they had been evalu= ated officially, we asked the question in the following manner in order to elicit their own evaluations: "When one has completed a job he usually has a hunch or notionabout how well he has done according to his own criteria of performance. This feeling may be completely independent of how he thinks others may have rated his performance, either officially or unofficially. With respect to this tour of duty with ICA, how would you rate your own performance?" We handed the men a card bearing the five adjective ratings usually used in personnel evaluation in United States government service; thirty-three responded without hesitation: Rating Number Excellent 6 Very good 15 Good 6 Fair 6 No report 1* "A physician, unable to work because of a student strike, said he had no performance to evaluate. 53 -. .1 ._-_- 54 'Except as a man might bring the issue into consideration, we took professional or technical competence as a given. Although techni- cal competence is important in technical assistance, this is a matter of perspective. Weidner says "professional competence is many— sided, "1 while Cleveland stresses "a breadth of education and experi- ence that will allow an adaptable general practitioner to play a versatile r0165 ll 2 -On the basis of the Civil Service Commission study, Mandell notes,~ "The technical assistant must often be able to communicate at an elementary technical level-"the domestic specialist may have forgotten his A. B. C‘s. “3 With the personal evaluations of these men as a background, we explore how the individuals related themselves to the tasks and the problems associated with the work. In addition to reviewing how men evaluate their own performance, we analyze what they bring to the work situation, how they cope with frustrations, and their influence on decisions, the decision makers, and the decision=making process. Evaluation of Pe rformanc e Festinger states that a drive exists in every human to evaluate his opinions and abilities.4 To the extent that objective, nonusocial means are not available, he theorizes, people evaluate their opinions 1Weidner, p. 224. ZCleveland, (3331., pp. 129-131. 3Milton M. Mandell, ”Selecting Americans for Overseas Assign- ments." -Personnel Administration, Vol. 21, No. 6 (N0v.—Dec., 1958), pp. 25-30. 4Leon Festinger, "A Theory of Social ComparisonProcesses. " Human Relations, Vol. 7, 1954, pp. 117-140. Reprinted in=Paul Hare, e_t il- , Small Groups: Studies in Social Interaction (New York: Alfred A- Knopf, 1955), pp. 163-187. 55 and abilities by comparison respectively with the opinions and abilities of others. Ability and willingness of the respondents to rate their own performance when interviewed suggest that they had earlier arrived at an evaluation. Comments of these three men illustrate Festinger's thesis in different ways: "In the absence of a program, this was difficult. On my previous tours I aligned myself with the extension services and found that where extension agents were interested in developing training activities in my field, and you had so many people turn out for so many demonstrations, you later could see some evi- dence that they were picking up or copying what you were doing. " "This is something you can‘t determine in a country that is undeveloped. You can‘t actually see what you are doing; you don't know how well you are getting across to them in a per- manent sense; most of the people are sub—professional. I be— came sort of a father confessor to all the nationals on the crew; I felt this was an indication that I had gained their confidence. " "It‘s a matter of the work habits you have developed over the years; take a regular review of what you are doing, and try to be honest with yourself. You use your own criteria, since there are no other criteria available. " Criteria of Evaluation. Responses to the question, "How did you determine how well you were doing?“ further document Festinger's views, and are classified into three general categories (see Table 9). Table 9. How Americans say they determined how well they were doing on their technical assistance jobs. Items Mentioned Number Re spondents “Own judgment“ 8 Acceptance by nationals, by Americans or by both nationals and Americans 13 “Own judgment, “ plus acceptance by nationals and/or Americans 10 Never knew 2 No reply _56 "OWN JUDGMENT " Those who rely on their own judgment of what constitutes achieve- ment of technical standards of job performance mention such factors as comparisons of accomplishments with objectives, quality of finished products, comparisons with past experiences, and how things develop with respect to theory. But the men characteristically differ in their approaches to such means. A research man expresses it in this way: "You/do this by checking out on your technical hunches-=— which come out according to theory; these are the only times I am happy with my work. . . If things don't work out that way, then you know that you have not diagnosed the problem correctly or the theory is wrong. “ An educator thinks in terms of objectives: “We accomplished what we set out to do; there was no other objective criteria. “ A production technician looks to the product: “There‘ s only one criterion--how the finished film looks on the screen. “ ACCEPT ANC E BY NAT IONALS Eight mention ”acceptance by host nationals, " I/ as a Single criterion compared to two who say ”acceptance by Americans. “ "Acceptance by host nationals" covers professional, semi—professional, social, and personal activities. Frequently mentioned items are: "Being asked to give opinion on something in which'l was not really involved"; "being I invited to a meeting or conference when there was no need for me to be there"; “being asked for advice on personal matters"; "being invited to social affairs when I would be one of the few non—nationals present"; and“‘being invited to family affairs (weddings, funerals, christenings). " Two men with experience in the same country, but in different fields , say: “By having some relatively good relations with some nationals who would tell me things they wouldn‘t often tell westerners . . . such as how does a national official work. " 57 "By the-way the craftsmen receivedme; the way they followed suggestions, by what theymade, and the products I saw on sale. " ACCEPTANCE BY» AMERICANS The relatively infrequent mention of acceptance by Americans seems consistent with the fact that amajority of the respondents are critical of the American work organization and see the American organi— zation as at source of frustration. The infrequent but critical references to the official performance ratingalso indexes this feeling. ~ One-third of the group indicate that they had considered-alternative criteria of evaluation or had gone about evaluation in a manner character- istic of the professional approach in theparticular field. Thetfollowing particularly illustrates this point about professional approach: ”This came out of my experiences at home. I rely on the judgment of qualified people whoare in the best position to know. A professional worker. should be concerned about judgments; how he uses these is another matter. Iniforeign service, if one is effective in producing within the commitments of the» moment, his counsel will be sought in connection Withfurther developments or new ventures. ” Conversely, fourteen say they usedthe evaluation criteria they did "as a crutch, " or because "nothing else was available. " Three‘state their dissatisfaction with theofficial rating system‘was the-principal. reason for selecting some other criterion. These comments are typical reactions to official evaluations: l'The‘ICA evaluation forms are ridiculous; they are idiotic. I do not believe in l to ,5 ratings . . . there's a general tendency to give people a 2 or 3 rating. “ "We need badly to weed out those whoare incompetent, and I‘m not sure that the present rating system will reveal this. The incompetents are the ones doing the rating; " 58 The data reveal no apparent relationship between the-level at which the men evaluate their. performance and the kind of criteria they say they used to determine how well they were doing. There seems to be some association, however, betweenevaluationcriteria and the variables of educational orientation,- previous employment, and prior -’" overseas experience. The non—technically orientedtare more likely to use a combination of personal and acceptance factors than those with a technical education. Persons who worked for profit-making organi— zations before going abroad are morelikely to depend upon being accepted by nationals andAmericans than those who had been employed by the United States government or non-profit institutions. Those without previous overseas experience are more likely to depend on acceptance alone, while those with experience abroad tend to name personal criteria alone or a combination of both personal and acceptance factors. Work performance involves both evaluation and compromises. Twenty-eight of the men say they were bothered by compromises they had tomake in professional criteria and performance. , They mention compromises in technical criteria eighteentimes and in work-related values twelve times. This techniciants viewillustrates the general case: "I felt I did not“ achieve the propertyandmanagement con- trols that I would have-liked; time was so short and the-abilities of people so limited. “ The following depicts the rationale of one of those not bothered: ”I felt that American technicians and advisors tried to set too high standards, or. levels that were almost self-e ’_ defeating; it did not bother me to work at a lowerclevel. " 59 What MenBring to the Work Situation We examine four aspects of men in‘relation totheir work: (a) The personal skills and competencies they‘feel were most important; (b) the duties and. activities in‘which they felt most adequate and inadequate; (c) what they saw as most professionally challenging, and, , finally; (d) the American values and ways of working they weremost interested in introducing. Three—fourths of the men cite education, Skills and Comjetencies. experience and/or interest in dealing withpeople as one of the-personal attributes most important in furthering the work. Fewlist just a single Twenty also mention the importance of professional, techni— attribute. cal, or manual skills. -Previous overseasexperience does not seem as important ~toithose who had it as we might expect. - Of the twelve with prior experience, none list this as the most important thing which'they brought to the work; eleven mention it, but only in addition to the pro— fessional qualifications they held or their experience in dealing with peOple. . These three comments illustrate various aspects of how men view themselves in relation to their work: "I didn’t need my professional knowledge; my agricultural extension experience (had taught me patience, but what seemedto help me get along were simple manual skills . . . able totype, to adjust the mimeograph . . ability to get along withclerical H people, and being a green thumb gardener. ”This includedrmy ten years of overseas experience in dif- ferent countries and a willingness to accept nationals as people at least as good as you. ” "I believe that my ability to establish good personal work- ing relationships, good human relationships, wasmore important I could talk to villagers, andcould than technical competence. get them to like me as a person. ” 60 Adequacies andlnadequacies. To get some ideaas to how (the men felt their skills and competencies equipped them for the activities in which they became engaged, we asked them where they felt most adequate and where most inadequate. « Twenty-five identify the duties and activities in which they felt most adequate as being those requiring. their principal professional competency. Of the total sample, thirteen say they felt adequate in duties involving relations with, and administration of, . peeple. Consideration of the duties and activities in which the-men felt most inadequate revealed a greater range of concerns. - Oneathird of the group felt inadequate when called upon to perform technical duties peripheral to their field, as did this marine biologist: _ ”I felt most inadequate-in discharging duties which were on thefringe of my technical competence . . but which were demanded because of the job. .As a biologist you did not have very adequate knowledge of combustion engines or boat construc.= tion, but you were working withfishermen so you had to sort of feel your way. " Seven persons had problems growing out of the cases where they had to teach others and/or administer programs. VA young engineer, on his first job following graduate-school, describes his experience: "I felt most adequate during the second year indesign, drawing, and calculations. This was what I had studied in graduate school and it was new-to the nationals. They had to turn to me for help. But I felt most inadequate (during thefir st year) in training and problemJ-solving work, where‘I hadto Then. you. couldn't turn to . Specific—formulas, deal with people. and every problem seemed different in terms of the pe0ple involved. " Five felt inadequate in dealing with the administrative-procedures of the ICA and the‘USOM. Their reactions varied, as in the views of these two educators: 61 "Despite extensive U.«S. civilian andmilitary experience with government,- I felt a need for instruction and tutoringin the procedures connected withconducting affairs in the U. S. foreign service with respect to reporting, budgeting, and the'like. " ". . . in trying to communicate what I was doing to the accounting branch of ICA . . . the boys with the‘sharp pencil who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. For example, I tried to get approval to buy meter sticks for the (schools locally, but the business manager felt it would be better and cheaper to buy yardsticks in the U. S. He ignored the (fact that the country Operates on the meter system. " What They Find Challenging. Two~thirds of the men say. "starting from absolutely nothing, " as one puts it, or as ”being able to start with a raw lump of clay,- " as another expresses it, as the most professionally Many who say this complain challenging aspects of their assignments. about the inadequacy of human and technical resources to. do what they wanted to do; nevertheless, they saw the work as professionally, challenging. Most others were challenged by the communication task involved in their work and by the opportunity to demonstrate American ways and concepts. For example: ”In many ways you donot grow; you developabilityrto apply what you know in aless advancedculture. , It’s challenging in that you want to see solutions to their problems . . . and how you are going to sell or communicate these ideas. ” ”It was a challenge to try and channel some information their way as subtly as possible andto try and keep them from getting the idea that I felt that I knew-all. the answers. " ”The American goes in with the idea‘that he is going to do a technical job; but the most important thing that you can do is an educational one, to try to throw out ideas, to stimulate their thinking, to get them to realize their potentialities of im- proving situations. " An explanation of why Americans are challenged by a situation 1 they perceive as "starting from scratch" probably lies in the fact 62 that theyefind. challenging those jobs which provide opportunity to use their skills, initiative, and abilities.1 w This comment illustrates the interaction of this withlprofessional pride andAmerican values: "I wanted to be able to point with pride, after I had-left the country, tomy accomplishments; I wanted to be-able to form lasting friendships with nationals; I wantedto be able to do things that would actually improve thelot of the nationals, and would help the country to progress and improve the economy . . . toward that end I worked 7 days a week. ” Concern for American Values. - Nearly half of the items whichmen mention in response toaninquiry about What American values and ways of work they were most interested in introducing relate to professional or technical standards and criteria. Such responses may indicate an unawareness of one' s own values and how these may pervade his techni- cal assistance approach, or the assumption of universal norms. -One craftsman tried to keep his approach "value free”: ‘ ”I don't believe thexnationals were too keen about the way Americans do things. I did not try to introduce any other thing than ways of working with gold and silver. " Five say it was "not our business tochange values. " Some others recognize changes in their own values. _ One; says he was initially con- cerned withpromoting theacceptance of women as equals, the value of work, the value of education‘for’all, and respect foretheindividual, but "Whenyou arrive you (have certainideas;, they beginto change your ideas about what is best. You begin to change your standardsabout such things as sanitation; what is important to you may not be possible there. " 1John and Ruth Useem develop this point in "Social Stresses-and Resources: AmongMiddle'Management Men; “ in E. Gartly Jaco, ed. Eitients, Physicians, and Illness (Glencoe: ‘ The'Free‘PreSS, 1958), . PP. 74-91. 63 Another. states,- "I put my value system on the'shelf and only took it off when it seemed appropriate to dose, “ He did not identify the appropriatesituations. About one-fourth of the men express concern for more democratic treatment of servants and employees along with the desire to demonstrate that'Americans were not afraid to ”work hard" and "get their hands dirty. " The first comment below depicts a reaction to an office situation, and the other in the personal living context: .”'I tried to introduce a more informal approach to working in an office, and more relaxed attitude in dealing with sub- ordinates. Our approach was to break downany caste's‘ystems within the offices. ‘ I felt they liked this and it made their own work more effective. " ”We didn't like this servant business, and wanted to demonstrate that we could work for ourselves. We had no servants. We tried todemonstrate that we do little things with our hands. We tried toact there‘as we would at home, and get across the idea that Americans are 'ri‘ch‘“ because they work hard. It How They C0pe-with Frustrations Recognizing that the cross-cultural work role frequently generates considerable-stress and strainifor American technical assistance workers, we were interested in what frustrated the‘men in this sample, when frustrations occur, how theyhandled them, .and the relation of their cultural insight to frustrations and work performance. What Frustrates Men. . Frustrations experienced by the men. in this study were principally sourced in the American organization. They men- tioned the attitudes and feelings of the host nationalsandthe professional situation less frequently. Whilethese sources of frustration .aresome- what interdependent, we examine them separately. 64 The American Organization. In at least three ways, respondents 1ame the American organization or' "other Americans" as the principal aources of their frustrations. Half of the group direct comments Lgainst Americans and/or the administrative problems and require—- nents of the USOM. Thirteen reiterate these feelings in identifying vhat they most disliked to do, and one-third of the sample say that work-= ng with Americans was the toughest part of the job. ABOUT AMERICANS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS "The Americans in the capitol city were the most frustrating. I had expected some problems with the nationals, but not with the Americans. “ “The American organization, administration and personali-= ties were most frustrating. Basically, the policy was immediate action and achievement; they wanted pictures, publicity materials everything was go, go, go. ,But under no circumstances must you rock the boat; you must not offend; you must make omelets without cracking eggs; “ DISLIKED AND TOUGHEST PARTS OF JOB “I disliked writing up annual reports and extolling the success of projects, knowing that no matter how flattering you made your report, it would be rewritten into even more flatter» ing terms. " "I disliked the difficulties of working with-Americans . . . their lack of understanding of how to run a program; I doubted if they were really qualified to administer activities; too many tried to apply their techniques and principles that would work in the U. S. , but they would not work in No simple explanation exists as to why so many relationships with the American organization are frustrating, disliked, and the toughest part of the work. The complex explanation includes many dimensions. First, most men expect rationally conceived (or what appear to be rationally Conceived organizations) to operate rationally.1 When they find that they \Chris Argyris, - Interpersonal Competence and Organizational W, (Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1962),.pp, 28-37, 65 do not, men tend to respond negatively. They acquire this set to rationality through organization charts, job descriptions, and lengthy briefing and orientation sessions about policies and procedures. Many fail to take into account the bureaucratic problems incident to the distances, time lags, lead times, and diplomatic issues involved. One man, displaying some insight on this issue, comments: "There was a jerkiness in operations and a time lag that dragged on progress. I felt an urge to push, when this would have been in vain. It‘s difficult to understand the range of time spans involved in planning and the problems inherent in communicating halfway around the world. “ Other facets of the problem include expectations generated in the recruiting process, irritating administrative delays associated with pro= cessing of the personnel papers, discrepancies between the promises of the Washington headquarters staff and the perceived realities of the field, and the usual tensions between administrative and technical values. Perhaps particularly unique to ICA, with its own "career" staff, are the tensions between those who are permanent, career employees and those employed for a Z-year term. The professionals live with a system of policies and procedures which they helped create and, to a certain extent, are dedicated to defend against criticism from within and without. They appreciate the problems of "selling" the foreign aid pro- gram to the Congress and the American public; this leads them to press for favorable progress and accomplishment reports. In a sense, they have learned to report what will be most instrun'iental to the continuance of the technical assistance program. Not only are the newcomers frustrated and irritated by what they feel are false reports about their accomplishments, but they resent bitterly the continuing necessity to justify their position and activities 66 tois‘uperiors in the USOM and Washington. . Having been hired "to do a job,- "it is difficult for them to reconcile being asked to stop doing it in order to justify their existence. , Reissman's study of roleiconceptions in a bureaucracy provides additional explanation for some of the tensions and. frustrations arising within the American organization. He identifies four bureaucratic types: 1. The functional bureaucrat who is oriented toward and seeks recognition from a given professional group outside of the bureaucracy. Z. The specialist bureaucrat who exhibits a greater aware= ness of identification with the bureaucracy, andseeks recognition from the department and the people with whom he works. He is sometimes described as having entered Civil Service for A "negative" reasons, i. e. , he couldn't get as good a job outside of government. 3. The service bureaucrat who occupies a position of am- bivalence; he is oriented to the bureaucratic structure, but seeks recognition for his work outside of the group. He entered Civil Service to realize certain goals which-center about render= ing service to a certain group. 4. The job bureaucrat who is immersed in the structure and seeks recognition along departmental rather than professional lines. 1 IniReissman's terms, wemight characterize the meninthis study as being principally "functional" and-"service" types with theprofessional career persons in technical assistance being “specialist" or "job" types. As an example, some technicians speak derogatively of the“ "Marshall Plan veterans protective association, " which they describe-as "a bunch of ex-army officers who moved out of the service intoadministrative posts in the early days of the Mar shallPlaninEuroPe and have moved lLeonardRe-issman, "A Study of Role Conceptions inBureaucracy, " _S_9Cial Forces. (March, 1949), pp. 305-310. 67 upward into technical assistance administrative positions over the past 15 years. They couldn't get a job on the outside, and theyknow it. They are interested in holding a job, not doing one. " Other Sources of Frustration. -Other frustratingfactors include the attitudes and feelings of host nationals (l4 mentions) and the pro- fessional situation, including technical facilities andcompetency of the nationals (9 mentions). Similarly, fourteen men cite the professional situation-as the "toughest" part of the work and-nine-as the part of the work "most disliked. " ‘Many of the complaints in these closely associ- ated areas relate to the problems of planning, developing, and imple- menting programs and projects with the host governments. . For instance: ”It was frustrating to get cooperation from OfflCials3 they kept putting you off; also, being left out of staff meetings called by my counterpart. " ”It was tough to get decisions from the host government . . . any kind of decision. My counterpart and I would work out a program and decide to do certain thingsand then we -might have to go to theiminister to get some timber-assigned to our little saw mill. " "It was tough to get them to-settle down to a program and carry through without constantly changing. ” The difficulties and discomfort which many of the Americans find in working in and through-strangebureaucratic structures are complicated by their experiences with-and their- own, values of appro— priate professional performance. - A veteran government accountant was frustrated by "the low standards in relation toumy own. -One of the most disappointing things was the unreliability of the nationals. I was always afraid that there would be serious defaults in handling of money. " Another, with more than 30 years experience inuAmerican agri- cultural extension, disliked “sittingin the office when I could do more by getting out in the field. “ A metal craftsman, with many years in his 68 own plant, disliked "the reports to USOM and the silly old staff meetings in the USOM. " These comments suggest that some of the frustration with the nationals and the professional situation grow out of the Americans' own inexperience with bureaucracies and decision-making situations, either at home or abroad. They illustrate the point Caldwell describes: "The tasks for which technical cooperation is sought are not abstract technical problems; they involve factorsof time, place, land people. . . .i The professional badge that the expert wears cannot thereforeadequately identify his role. iThe role follows partly from the profession in relation to the task, but the task invariably imposes additional requirements upon the human relations skills of the expert with particular emphasis on ability to communicate. "1 Perhaps as much as anything else, the American's problems in adjusting to the bureaucratic operations are linked to the fact that, for most, their positions abroad are of higher organizational status. They are not accustomed to the problems associated with this new status, the required behaviors are not familiar, . and they encounter new problems and stresses. This soils specialist's reaction is typical: "You don't believe them when they tell you that your first few months will be best spent getting acquainted with the system. They should make this more explicit with new people. This is a real culture shock that you can't get things doneias fast as you can here. ” Frustration Checksheet. In addition to answering questions. about their frustrations, the men rated fifty items identified inpretests as possible sources of frustrations. l- Each person rated each item on two scales: Frequency--"Most of the time, '.~' "quite frequently, " "now and then, " and-f'never"; how important to me in relation to my work-- "high, " “medium, " and ”low...” Combining the freguency withiimportance scales, producedia 12- pOint scoring system, ranging from 1 (most of time - high importance) —_ 1Caldwell, pp. 91 ~99. l________ 69 to 12.(never - low importance). (The complete table is reproducedas Appendix B.) The four most frequently cited items (checked by half of the men) mirror the same impatience with and criticisms of Americans andthe American organization noted earlier.» These four items, all rated of high importance and occurring at frequencies ranging from "now‘and then" to"'most of time, "are: Incompetence of Americans involved in work. (18 mentions) Prevailing concepts of mission objectives. (17) Delays, red tape in decisions related to job. (17) Lack of confidence in superiors. (16) On the same importance-frequency basis, thirteen persons name as frustrating six other items closely associated with the‘American organization and/or his work activities; Nature of work in relation to my own expectations. Extent my abilities used in the work. Extent free to make my own decisions. Inadequate supplies, equipment, materials. - On-the—job rapport with nationals. , Inadequate sense of personal accomplishment. At the other end of the. scale, two-thirds of the Americans say .tems such as the following either never occurred or. never frustrated :hem: Lack of professional challenge in the job assigned; vague sense if job security; changes in position or duties; working with interpreters ind translators; and not knowing what I would do at end of tour. WhenFrustrationsOccur. With the exception of four menrwho avere most frustrated in the first months of their tours, the balance experi- enced the most frustration as follows: After the first six months, eight; .n the second year, six; increasingly throughout the tour, , four; and con- stantly throughout tour, nine. These findings are consistent with those of Useem1 and the observ= itions of Foster.2' The explanationseems intimately involved with the H; ’ lJohnUseem, based on a yet unpublishedstudy of Americans work— ng in=India. ZFoster, pp. 191-192. 70 length of time the men say it took them to learn their job. Crudely, most respondents estimate that the length of time to learn their job was approximately half of the time they were in or had expected to be in the country. What seems involved is this: The technician spends his first few weeks or months in an exploratory frame of mind. His recruiters, those who oriented him, and/or his superiors all may have told him to do this. His job is indefinite; they tell him to see what the problem is and make some recommendations. He finds the situation, instead of becoming more clear, getting increasingly complex. Things ordered or promised do not arrive; personnel come and go; and each week or month he is asked to report progress. Finally, he realizes that his time in the country is about half gone; he decides that ”this" is what he will do . . . or will try to do. By coming to this decision he,in fact, now defines (and "learns") what his job will be. 'Now he is more in» volved than ever; he has a definite goal, and anything that gets in his way frustrates. Two men illuminate this process: "It was most frustrating about the middle of the tour when you realized things were not coming or would be slow in arriving. You are at the halfway mark in your tour and want to get some— thing underway. " “It was most frustrating during the last year; the more you became involved, the more you experienced the frustrations of not being able to get things done on schedule, of having to re— peatedly ask for information, of no deadlines as we know them. " Foster1 says this problem grows out of the program-orientation for which American professional training equips specialists when they need problem—orientation to succeed abroad. In other words, he views 1Foster, pp. 178-79. 71 .1051; professional training in the United States as being designed to quip the student to live and work in his own society, a society which 5 characterized by specific problems. Relating this to the issue under :oncern here, Foster comments: "But just at the time he is deepest in stage two of culture shock, he sees that he can't possibly accomplish in his twoayear term the things he planned to do. The pace of the country seems slow; his counterparts seem uninterested; necessary materials are delayed; and budgets are held up. ”The technician realizes, with horror, that he won’t have much to show for his time. His self-=esteem and his security are threatened, and the shock deepens. What will his pro-=1 i fessional colleagues back home—=simultaneously his best friends and most severe critics——think? . . . This means, unfortunately, that just at the time when we need maximum flexibility in coping with new conditions, security seems to lie in the course of maxia mum rigidity... . But program—oriented people need time, and favorable conditions to learn problem=thinking, and this, while they are experiencing culture shock, is just what they don't have. In a strange and (apparently) hostile world, there is only one thing we can be absolutely sure of: we are first class, Aml pro‘= fessionals. But how do we prove it? Obviously, we demonstrate it, to our own satisfaction if not that of others, by trying to dupliu cate the states=side job that we have so often done before. "1 How Men Handle Frustrations. Men do not respond to their fruso | rations in the same way. Festinger suggests, "If a person knows two hings, for example, something about himself and something about the vorld in which he lives, which somehow do not fit together, we will peak of this as cognitive dissonance. “2 If these two things do fit to- ether, the condition is consonance. Dissonance prompts behavior Ihich attempts to reduce the dissonance. 1Foster, p. 192. 2Leon Festinger,- "The Motivating Effect of Cognitive Dissonance, " 1 Gardner Lindzey (ed.) Assessment of Human Motives (New York: rove'Press, Inc. , Evergreen E‘204, 1960), p. 69. 72 With this as an underlying proposition, we classified the way men .andle their frustrations into five categories: Changes in oneself, hanges in the situation, acceptance of situation, retreat from the situ— tion, and marking time. Men mention changes in or attempts to :hange oneself and the system eleven times each; five cite both in combi= ration. CHANGE SITUATION This physician describes a typical attempt to change the American system: "As soon as I learned how the nationals went about their business, I refused to be frustrated by them; but within the mission and with respect to Washington, this was another matter. I would pound at them; I would squawk at every staff meeting; I would get personal interviews with the director, program officer, controller and others. I sent airgrams to Washington, called WaShington on the phone. . .. . I just kept a barrage of things going. " None of the Americans reveal they were as aggressive in trying 0 change frustrating aspects of the host system as they were with ssmerican-sourced frustrations. The approaches, if any, were subtle ,nd easy—going, as this case represents: "You had to draw back and start over; you had to be ex— tremely polite, never losing your temper . . . constantly repeat— ing and trying again. “ One man's views deviates considerably from the rest: "With the nationals I came to the conclusion about their mores and interaction patterns that is at variance with most of the stuff you get in Washington. Basically, I see the and his mores as accepting and respecting strength. Many of our common niceties and courtesies are mis-interpreted as weaknesses. I found it necessary to put my foot down and say no, and then be able to back it up. " 73 But this is a deviant case; this “first=timer" technician seems as equally frustrated by the American organization as the national system and as outspoken in his criticisms and aggressive in his behavior toward one as the other. Most Americans subordinate or suppress their criti= cisms and antagonisms of the host organizations and operations. If they express frustrations, they direct it against individuals, the culture, and the customs. They rarely identify the-"system“; the opposite is true with their American-sourced frustrations. They were more likely to attack the American system than individuals, and (in Chapter VI) they report most of their interactions with Americans as satisfactory. Common courtesy perhaps explains some but not all of the differ= ences in their behavior. Later in this chapter we note the lack of insight which most respondents had of the decision=making process in the host organizations. This probably relates to their inability to identify the relevant host systems with which they were working. The American system, on the other hand, was more familiar and visible. Traditionally, Americans criticize the organizations to which they belong or for which they work. CHANGE ONESELF Technicians express the changes in themselves in several ways: ”I tried to be patient and worked to get understanding. I reco nized this as m own res onsibility. “ g Y P "You lived with your frustrations. You joked about them; you worked hard throughout the tour, but you learned to live like a national. You tried to enjoy the foods, the music, etc. ” "Mostly I lived with my frustrations. I began to realize that you can't achieve perfection . . . that if you made some progress, you were accomplishing something. “ 74 ACCEPT SITUATION Acceptance, or ultraeconformity, represents a full commitment the system with disregard for self. - One of the two persons in this ass puts it this way: "1 adapted to the situation. I came to accept things as they were, and turned some problems over to the nationals to handle. If necessary to get something done, I gave an official a present. " RETREAT None of the men“ retreated" from the situation without first trying 3 change either themselves or the situation. In the end, however, four .id retreat by resigning or by pressuring ICA to return them to the states. The following illustrates the extreme case-”he paid his own way back to the states: “First, I tried to ignore and neutralize the efforts of those (Americans) I considered incompetent and to strengthen the efforts of those competent. Also, every day I approached the job as though it were going to be different and better. On week-= ends, I went about the country and loved and liked it and the people. But at the end of 15 months, I resigned and paid my own way back to the States. " Several respondents report semiuprofessional and professional activities in which they engaged outside of their immediate sphere of Work and responsibility. Former agricultural extension workers, for instance, were uncomfortable and frustrated by the confines of offices and the problems inherent in working in complex bureaucracies; they wanted to get out and work with the "small farmers. " Some did, even though they had been told not to do this. Most, if not all, of the respondents in this study were engaged in ance. communication technical assistance as opposed to performance assist— A few were program support and administrative personnel, although this is not what they expected to be in going abroad. As with 75 the former extension workers, there were others, particularly among those technically oriented, who handled some frustrations, in part, by directly engaging in performance technical assistance. Among such individuals were: I The veterinarian, frustrated by delays involved in imple= menting new policies and procedures in the ministry, who worked with small farmers and local veterinarians in the treatment of livestock diseases. A young sanitary engineer, after a year of exasperating experience trying to teach a group of nationals, was transferred to a sewer construction project. Here he became involved in a conflict with the contractor over accepting subustandard materials and was reprimanded by the mission for getting him«= self in affairs presumed outside of his sphere of responsibility. A metal craftsman tried to ignore the people in the USOM and host government, and avoided all types of administrative involvement, preferring to work directly with the local crafts= men. Disturbed when the police officials ignored his recommend= ations, a public safety advisor organized some courses and ob=- tained permission to teach in the police academy where his ideas found more ready acceptance. An advisor on accounting and business education risked reprimands from the mission to continue teaching the courses he had established while working in the country under a univer= sity contract operation. . Men in this sample identify barriers to reaching other Americans and host nationals which closely parallel the sources of their frustra-= tions. One-third perceive barriers with other Americans, these being personality, attitudes, incompetence, protocol, and paperwork. Two» thirds mention barriers between themselves and nationals, with protocol, Politics, bureaucracy and attitudes being most frequently cited. They adapted to or overcame barriers with the nationals by chang-= ing or trying to change the situation in ten instances, by accepting them Six times, and by changing themselves in five cases. 76 Culture, Frustrations, and Work Performance. Much technical assistance literature cites the value of cultural empathy, insight, or / sophistication for two principal purposes: Satisfactory personal adjust== ment abroad and more effective accomplishment of mission. To the extent interaction with a strange culture contributes to frustration, the specialist becomes unhappy and less effective and inefficient. Earlier in this chapter, one respondent and one author referred to culture shock,1 the term usually used to describe the individual's reactions to and difficulties in adjusting to climate, food, and strange customs. Few men in this study mention this type of shock; four indicate that the personal living situation was the hardest part of their work. Of these, three were at posts outside of the capitol city, and the fourth, while quartered in the capitol, found the food "terrible. " In addition, he frequently had to make 3=hour trips, over bad roads through bandit-= infested country. Our inquiry into various cultural considerations was prompted by the notion that whether he recognizes it or not, the American technical assistance specialist abroad experiences a special kind of "cultural shock" in the context of his professional assignment. Cleveland defines cultural empathy as ”the skill to understand the inner logic and coherence of other ways of life, plus the restraint not to judge them as bad because they are different from one‘s own ways. "2 "Cultural empathy, " as Weidner views it, "implies not only knowledge, enthusiasm, and adjustment, but understanding, the ability to project oneself into another's position, and in general a great interest 1One of the most quoted references on culture shock is the memor- andum of Kalervo Oberg. This, written originally for use in ICA orien— tation programs, is reproduced in part inCleveland, it a_._l. , pp. 27=28. 2Cleveland, e_t a_l., p. 136. 77 in things that are different from the way they are back home. . . . Staying American and yet developing a feeling for the host point of view--this is the desirable quality. "1 Lee emphasizes the importance of understanding cultures as a means of expanding one's ability to perceive reality. "Thus, " she says, "I am enabled to see my culture as one of many possible systems of relating the self to the universe, and to question tenets and axioms of which I had never been aware. . . . Cultures may inhibit to a greater or lesser degree; but I believe that generally speaking, culture offers a guide to the individual, and possibly provides limits within which the individual can function in his own way. “2' Unfavorable and Favorable Aspects. As a group, the respondents are unsophisticated in their ability to differentiate the cultural concepts or identify aspects salient to their technical assistance work. Whether they talk about culture or about customs, one=half see these as creating difficulties in their work and not facilitating it in any way; six see both favorable and unfavorable aspects; four, favorable aspects only, and nine, no relevance, i.e. , the culture (or customs) neither facilitates or hinders the work. The items they say caused difficulties reveal that the behaviors, values, and customs which Americans view as problems are primarily those which conflict with customs related to American values, American ideas about democracy and politics, and Judaic-Christian religious orientation. The data in Table 10 reflect the frequency of mention of these items as organized into seven major categories. IWeidner, p. 227. 2Dorothy Lee, Freedom and Culture (New York: Spectrum Book, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959). p. 2. 78 Table 10. Items relating to culture and customs which Americans say created difficulties. Item Frequency of Mention Orientation to life, nature, behavior 10 Lack of individual responsibility and initiative 10 Concepts of time and punctuality 9 Political and administrative immaturity Failure to emphasize pace and progress Style in interpersonal relationships oexioooo Lack of honesty; strange ethics ORIENTATION TO LIFE Many of the individual items in the “orientation to life, nature, and behavior" category are based in the particular religious systems of the countries involved. Among the customs and beliefs that Americans find interfering with their work are taboos against autopsy, inequalities in the status of women, cases of intense individualism, passive acceptance of nature, views of science as magic, fasting, fatalism, and reverence for the oldest member of the family. One technician's comments provide a typical example of a culture—bound reaction and behavior. When speaking of the influence of customs, MM complains that Muslim religious beliefs and practices, as well as the great number of national holidays, made it difficult to maintain work schedules. But when asked if social affairs were useful in accomplishing the work, MM says: ' ”Definitely. It helped the morale of the workers to go to their parties, and to exchange pleasantries. We also invited the workers to parties at our house to recognize occasions like the Fourth of July and Christmas. “ 79 LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY As examples of "lack of individual responsibility and initiative" they mention failure to accept blame, reluctance to face facts, feelings of inferiority, lack of confidence, avoidance of work by educated men, and hiring people to work without training them. CONCEPTS OF TIME Difference in office hours, the frequency of holidays, and failure to keep appointments frequently frustrate the Americans, as does the general lack of concern for time. POLITICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE IMMATURITY Among the difficulties associated with»"political and administra=~ tive immaturity" they list political instability, failure to delegate authority, catering to the wealthy, avoidance of taxes by the rich, emphasis on class and caste, prejudices against minorities, and the wide gulf between the rich and poor. INTERPERSONAL STYLE Americans also find themselves frequently frustrated by the extreme politeness of the nationals, and their tendency to say "yes" when they mean-"no" or "perhaps. " Their styles of interpersonal relationships, non-directness in conversation, reluctance to come to the point, and insistence on serving coffee or tea as part of the negotiating process bother Americans. The relatively few items the men name as making the work easier reflect aspects compatible with American values, politics, religious orientations, and the like. For instance, they most frequently cite "congenial, friendly people, easy to get along with. " Three others mention that the people were “eager for change, " or were "conscientious, hard-working, and applied themselves to study. “ Two speak of the rich cultural heritage of the people of their host countries, and several say that a history of English colonialism made it easier to work in the 80 countries. No one indicates how the culture or customs helped or facilitated him in any other way. Problems and Shortcomings. Inability of the Americans to identify facilitating aspects in the host culture is consistent with their perceptions of the major problems and shortcomings of the host organi— zation which were obstacles to the work in which they were engaged. Fourteen Americans describe the nationals as the obstacles, another nine the technical and administrative resources, and nine others name both the nationals and the resources. Two do not mention any problems. Typically, the host national obstacles include lack of ability and skill, attitudes, motivations, ethics, traditions, customs, concern for internal politics, political immaturity, and reflections of colonial influences. Those concerned with resources as problems cite lack of facilities and standards, shortage of funds, and inadequate organi— zational and administrative procedures. These data suggest an incongruity between what men expect to find in an "under-developed" country and what they perceive as prob» lems upon arriving. Presumably, some of the characteristics of being "under-developed" are lack of trained people, inadequate technical facilities, and faulty organization. But the American technician sometimes does not see these as part of the condition to correct; they loom as obstacles to more professionally-oriented goals. These comments from three men who served in the same country reveal how differences in men and their particular situations in a country affect their views: "Both the customs and the culture contributed to making the job easy. People of all levels were friendly, receptive, interesting. The culture was so different and so rich as com- pared with ours that this provided an intriguing opportunity to work. " 81 "It was difficult in that the educated man is not supposed to do any work; they were reluctant to put in elbow grease. " ”I was concerned about the nationals with whom,-I worked. They were either trained abroad or by people who had been abroad. Yet they were so caught up in local social customs and mores as to limit seriously their effectiveness. They would stay on the job at their desk after hours, not because they had work to do, but because the man at the next desk was there. " Factors which influence the perception of the obstacles and problems include the men's principal role, his educational orientation, and previous experience. Persons in technician—advisor roles and those with a technical educational orientation are most likely to see the host nationals as the obstacles. Persons in administrative roles and those with a non-technical educational orientation are more apt to identify the technical and administrative situation as the principal obstacle. Those with previous overseas experience demonstrate a trend to perceive host nationals as problems rather than the situation and are less likely to mention both the people and the situation. In other words, they clearly discriminate between the two categories. Where the American was Officed in the country does not seem to influence his perceptions of problems and shortcomings creating obstacles to his work. Cultural Sensitivity. Toward the end of the study we held the notion that a measure of lack of cultural sensitivity might well be the frequency and context in which technical as s-istance workers imply that "people are about the same everywhere, " and who describe their behavior in specific instances as doing "just as you would at home. “ Technicians frequently use these phrases, or their equivalents. Caldwell calls this phenomenon as "a myth pervasive among large numbers of Americans that, beneath superficial dissimilarities, people everywhere are fundamentally the same. In a rigorously limitedsense the belief may be valid; in the broad generalizing sense in which it is 82 often used, it is untrue and misleading. " He goes on to say that this kind of misconception can prejudice the ability of the expert to play a constructive role inasmuch as he may become more concerned with , . , "the cultural transformation of the host country than with the specific problem for which his assistance has been sought. In host country eyes, he may well be an egregious meddler who must be tolerated if he cannot be dismissed. Non-western- peoples in particular have developed immunities to gratuitous interference by well—meaning representatives of more 'advanced' cultures. The expert is permitted to keep himself busy in rela- tively harmless deliberation, and delay until his tour of duty ends. "1 If this latter point be the case, it might explain the difficulties in pace and progress at least one—fourth of the men encountered. Comparison of the meager list of cultural factors which they saw as facilitating the work with the greater number of items perceived as creating difficulties reveals a general lack of insight on what Lee calls the ”totality of a way of life": "Students of culture are coming to realize that any practice or concept is linked to, as well as supports, many other prac— tices and beliefs which eventually constitute the whole cultural framework; and that it has a special function Within this frame— work. A person from a different culture often finds it difficult to discover or recognize this function; it is easy to see the trait as merely a queer custom. So, in our ignorance, we have tempered with one trait, not realizing that thus we were actually tampering with the whole. ”2 As an example, most of the eleven technicians who had worked in Latin American countries failed to recognize the operation of a cultural pattern. They say the nationals with whom they worked (in most cases lCaldwell, p. 95. 2Dorothy Lee, "The Cultural Curtain, ” The Annals of the American Academy of Pol. and-Soc. Sci., Vol. 323 (May 1959), p. 121. 83 employees of the servicios) frequently asked for loans of money or ' advances on their salary. But only one technician recognized and accepted this as an established custom. He explains, v ”They borrow to about the extent of their severance pay . . . that is, the amount of money they would receive if they were to be discharged as of now. " Influence on Decisions and Decision-Making Through a series of questions, we tried to determine the extent and nature of the insight these thirty-four Americans had on the factors associated with decision—making in the host organization and the USOM. We present and discuss the data in these five sections: Indices of den cision-making insight, identification of decision makers, extent of influence, why Americans lack insight on decision—making, and an analysis of those who had insight. -Indices of Decision-Making Insight. We estimate that only eight of the men have effective insight about or are aware of the complex factors associated with decision-making in their work situations. We arrive at this estimate by taking into account answers to such questions as: ”Who were the key decisionmakers in the national organi- zation?” "Who were the most important people in the host organi- zation engaged in making decisions in which you were involved?" If the answers received could have been predicted, given an organization chart, and were not qualified or elaborated upon in any way, we classify this as an "organization chart" response, i. e. , lacking insight on the decision-making process. These comments are typical of non— organization chart re sponse s: 84- "There were all kinds and types of power structures, and these were constantly shifting. Frequently, you would have to manipulate people into particular jobs in order to get something accomplished. I also arranged to have some nationals transferred out of positions they were in for the same reason. " ”The key decision maker was the prince, a sort of benevolent dictator, but shrewd and gifted; iNhoever had his ear, no matter how high or low an official, became a key decision maker. " "It was hard to know who they were. I can tell only about those they threw in jail at the time the g0vernment toOk over. These essentially were the ministers. My own feelings are that the key decision makers were the businessmen outside of govern- ment. " We also find that where a man decides to focus his efforts, and the reasons for his decision, also index his knowledge or lack of knowl— edge of decision—making, as well as his concepts of how to do the job. Sixteen say they concentrated their efforts at middle and above policy levels, at technical levels, or at similar levels in state or provincial governments. The other eighteen name such focal points as educational institutions, business and industry, workers in industry, business and agriculture, and nationals on their own staff. They give these reasons for concentrating efforts Where they did: Reason Number People able to do something with the idea, or able to diffuse it to others 17 To gain access to other people, or as legitimizers 10 No choice if I was going to get anything done at all 4 To increase the number of trained people 3 A few, mostly those exhibiting insight on decision~making, stress the value of working at two levels—-—with those who make the policies, and With those who actually do the work. 85 That half of the group concentratedat least part of their efforts on="people able to do something with the idea" illustrates the pressures which build up in a technician to advance and personally implement tech— nical ideas. The technician may get himself into this position to reduce his frustrations, to create a technical monument by which he can be remembered, and/or to get the job done. As Caldwell puts it: "It is often easy for the expert to enter into the operational role. He may know better how to perform the particular service than anyone in the host country. He may indeed have been re— cruited for an operating assignment and this may be the role in which he can make the greatest immediate contribution. However, he may be tempted into an operating role under less appropriate circumstances. In default ofhost country support, he may assume operating responsibilities in order to attain the appearance of having achieved technical cooperation objectives. . . . Unfortunately, host country officials may be willing to permit him to act as a sub“ stitute for one of their own nationals if thereby they obtain the semblance of a successful program and a service with .minimal cost to their budget. “1 A veterinarian provides an example of this complex issue: ”I found it most productive to concentrate my efforts with the extension services, working in the field, even though this had nothing to do with the project to which I was assigned. Until . the minister signed the project on that, there was nothing for me to do. It's most gratifying and satisfying to work with small landowners through extension rather than with the large land- owners who are never present. ” A technician assigned to a servicio sees another way to exercise influenc e: "I concentrated on my own staff of nationals; they were surprisingly well-educated and a clever group. I let them spread the word in their own way . . . this made for an effective dif- fusion of ideas. " ICaldwell, p. 97. 86 A doctor, assigned to a national health service tried to work out joint projects with the country's medical schools and institutes. He recognized a shortage of trained people as one of the basic health prob~ lems and hoped to stimulate and facilitate the schools in training more people. Identification of Decision Makers. Respondents identify the nationals who made decisions relating to their work as being principally the middle level policy or top administrators (15) and persons at the technical level (14). About half perceive that political considerations influenced the decisions relating to their work "quite a bit, if not all of the time. “ They are less able to identify the factors or criteria which the nationals used in making decisions affecting their work. Ten fail to identify any. Among the factors they most frequently mention are: What‘s good for the country, including technical objectives; job and political considerations, including "don’t rock the boat, ” opportunity for material gain, or personal gain. One of the more insightful Americans says: "They were not particularly different from the Americans in the criteria they used; they had to be more careful iniintro— Some were sensitive to the need ducing change in their culture. for preserving the outward form of things while changing the substantive nature. “ One of the men more naive and inexperienced in foreign work openly criticizes their basis for decisions: ”Their main interest was not in the national welfare; but in showing themselves in a good light. ” The men identify technical level and support staffs of the USOM and the chief of mission or deputy chief as the most important Americans engaged in making decisions in which they were involved. Nine also mention the ambassador or people at the level of the consul general. 87 They reflect irritation with American administrators and the American organization in the factors they identify and comments they make about the criteria the Americans used in making decisions relating to their work. Ten fail to identify any criteria; some comment bitterly: "Frankly, I don‘t know. There were four directors in 27 months; one didn't give a damn about my program unless he could tie it in with agriculture; the next man didn't comprehend it at all; the third was interested in it to the extent he could use it to publicize the mission; and the fourth said he appreciated the program, but he tried to get rid of it. " ”I didn't know what made the mission director tick, or what perspective he had about my work or that of others . . . he blew hot and cold. “ ”You would have to ask them . . . they didn't tell me. " Among the possible criteria, they name: Within the planned pro- gram and budget, furtherance of American foreign policy, and/or Washington directives, and what’s good for the country. A research scientist in agriculture comments: "This would be hard to say. The USOM was short of competent technical men among the administrators. I suspect that many decisions and evaluations were made on a basis of personal likes and dislikes of individuals. They never asked technicians for recommendations. " A public administrator experienced in international work says: ”This is difficult to say; I think that in the main they tried to use technical criteria, but these are frequently inadequate in trying to deal in a foreign culture. " Extent of Influence. Analyses of responses to two other questions further substantiate What we have assumed as lack of insight on decision— making: ”About what things, if any, did you influence the decision makers ?" if any, did you have on the process by "’What influence, which decisions were made in the host organization?" If the pr1nc1pal role of the technical assistance person is to in— ‘ H fluence organizations and decisions rather than to ”build bridges, we should expect him to influence the decision makers in ways which contribute to 1nstitution building. However, the answers to the first question reveal an emphasis on technical matters (20 mentions) as com- pared to polic1es on administration of technical matters (9) and adminis— Seven men say they did not influence trative procedures and methods (6) the decision makers. Most men feel they influenced the process by which de0151ons were Twenty—one indicate they made even less than they had the dec1s1ons° had not influenced the process, the balance feel they benefited adminis- , such‘ trative practices or had introduced more democratic procedures as involving more people in deci51on making A bumnessman views his influence this way “I empha51zed that decisions had to be more direct With I made them realize more confidence and less 1ndec131on dec151ons must be made and with dispatch But a phySlCIan is somewhat resigned to his lack of influence" . , they ”I doubt very much if I affected the process at all are probably going along in the same old way. My counterpart 'We know we don't have the kind of administration but we don't think we need would tell me: that you have in the United States I” that kind here. And an extension man comments. "I tried to get them to give more attention to what the locals felt would be the best crops for them to grow. " Why Do Americans Lack Insight on Decision-Mak1_g? Here we focus attention on the twenty-=six we estimate lack inelght on dec151on- making processes, and the eight who have it by our criteria. 89 In exploring possible answers, we hope to gain understanding of the behaviors technicians perceive as associated with their assignments abroad. First, we advance a series of propositions, some of which may contribute to our understanding of man's behavior in relation to organi- zation and decision—making. In the following section, we look closely at the eight "insightful" men with the expectation that some of what we find will relate to the propositions we advance. We organize our own and the speculations of others about why / Americans lack insight on decision-making processes into five major categories: Education, experience, attitudes and beliefs, assumptions, and situational influences. Education. -Preparatory and advanced education for most pro-= fessions in America” includes, if at all, superficial material on the ele— ments, concepts and dynamics associated with power, influence, authority, and decision=making in either organization, community, or government. This is particularly true for those in the natural and physical sciences, where there is a readiness to discount or ignore the contributions of the social and behavioral scientists. The curriculum tends to ignore the human element and implies (or assumes) rationality in the behavior of people and organizations. Earlier we noted the charge that American education prepares specialists to carry out programs rather than to solve problems.1 Programs deal more with the technology (the hardware, etc.) than with people. But peOple have the problems, their ways of perceiving these, and their formal and informal ways of relating to each other. It takes many technicians a long time to discover this (even when working in their own country); some never do. 1Foster, pp. 178—79. 90 Experience. At home, the American generally works in a fairly well—defined position, surrounded by a host of visible and invisible technical and administrative supports. His range of relationships and contacts in the organization, both horizontally and vertically, are fairly limited; work-oriented relationships with other organizations are quite restricted. Unless his experiences are unique, he accepts without question the rationality of his job description and of the organi- zation chart. He may never have cause to question this. Other people, perhaps unknown to him, do the "politicking" in the organization. . Even if he senses that "things don‘t just happen the way it is spelled out on paper, " he may never inquire as to how they happen and why. When someone spells out the ”facts of life“ for him, he usually evidences a great deal of uneasiness, disbelief, and sometimes rejection. What he hears does not square with his long—held, cherished, idealized View of democracy and democratic decision—making and action. Even if the American abroad appreciates some aspects of the power structure and decision-making process, he may be perplexed in deciding what to do because his experience at home does not prepare him for the kinds of centralized governments and power structures which he encounters in most other countries. Cleveland states: "Americans are generally sure that the process of moderni- zation in which they serve as the cultural midwives requires a large measure of decentralization both of initiative and of effective control. But they are less certain as to how, starting with a centralized power structure, one goes about diffusing that power to subordinate units of government or private entre— preneurs. "1 Attitudes. Attitudes and beliefs toward politics, democracy, .free- dom, individuality, authority, and professional integrity play significant 1Cleveland, at 11., p. 165. 91 roles in the American's unawareness of or choosing to ignore decision- making processes associated with his work. Most Americans do not take politics seriously; they do not partici= pate actively in campaigns or elections. A few make the decision about community and governmental affairs and only rarely do the people object. They assume the democratic process, as they understand it, is operating. As Hunter observes: “They (policies) are acted upon, but with no precise knowl- edge on the part of the majority of citizens as to how these policies originated or by whom they are really sponsored. This situation does not square with the concepts of democracy we have been taught to revere. Perhaps Americans come closer to appreciating and understanding the subtleties of decision-=making and power structures when they get in- volved in the pressure blocs, power plays, and “smoke filled room" dis= cuSSions incident to elections and issues in their fraternal, professional, or trade associations. The question remains, however, as to how much of what they learn here they see as relevant to understanding their world of work. .Loomis 2 posits a relationship between the American's sense for politics and what he terms a deep-seated rejection of power and authority in the American culture. We should not overlook that many professionals value professional performance as the acceptable route to recognition and advancement. This value over—rides other considerations; they look with disdain upon colleagues who cater to administrative or other interests or who forsake strictly professional for administrative posts. You succeed by being a 1Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953), p. 1. _2Charles P. Loomis, quoted in Irwin T. Sanders (ed.), lnterpro- fessional Training Goals for Technical Assistance Personnel Abroad (New‘York: Council on Social Work Education, 1959), p. 47. competent professional not by becoming a "politician.- " And holding these views, they choose not to learn or to ignore the organizational facts of life. These views are closely related to'those noted earlier about the difference in status which the man abroad experiences from that which he has known in his work in the United States. He is inexperienced in the behaviors necessary to operate in higher status levels: his pro— fessional interests are in his specialty, and he finds it most easy to interact with technical level rather than policy or administrative level His time perspective is concentrated on technological accompa people. He is not favorably lishment in a comparatively short period of time. disposed to dissipating his efforts with people “who don't understand What I'm talking about, " and whom he perceives as not too interested. Some of the assumptions leading to decision- Assumptions. One of these is the making naivete include those already mentioned. assumption of the national behavior of men and organizations, the other relates to our assumptions and views of democracy and democracy in relation to our image of the American "way of life, " and ”what makes America tick. ” On this point, Green notes: "In America, conservative traditionalism has been pre— served amidst drastic political change. Ideas and principles play a small part; the notion that the past is ’given’ and ever renewed in the present is a valuable myth which preserves un- animity amidst diversity and clashing interests. Our political philosophy, built mainly in identity with our own geography and specific history, is not exportable. " In operating with an idealized version of American democracy, the American abroad assumes the existence of the organization or national prerequisites for democratic action. This fantasy compounds IArnold W. Green, Sociologfi An Analysis of Life in Modern Society (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1956), p. 341. 93 rapidly if neither the human or material resources are readily avail- able, or if economic, social, or political instabilities dictate "less democratic" approaches than those that fit the technical assistance man's image of reality and appropriateness. Another assumption also pervades technical assistance planning and operation, and, in turn, affects the concerns and behaviors of those engaged. This is that the American is ideally equipped to initiate and follow through on programs at the village or farm level, or, in other words, he can do his most effective work at these levels. Adminis- trators and technicians who share these views again evidence a blind- ness to the organizational and institutional prerequisites to maintaining programs at the village or farm level. This blindness may account for lack of interest or knowledge of the decisionwmaking process, or vice versa. Situational Influences. Within any overseas situation, symbols, cues, and other influences (some human) confront the American, further obscure his View of how things operate, and may lead him to false conclusions. We might term the first of these as the "illusion of the organization chart. “ Around the world, organization charts look sub- stantially the same. Given a chart of a host organization, the American responds to this much as he would a similar chart at home. To do so, however, overlooks the point that "bureaucracy is indigenous to its own culture, "1 and the chart abroad may emulate the form but not the sub— stance of American charts. The technician abroad finds himself trying to adjust to new criteria of job performance. One measure of his success overseas is his ability to "work himself out of a job"; this may not have been the case at home. Moreover, he needs to take into account that his presence, and activities bring about changes in power and other relationships 1Cleveland, (it a_.__l., p. 162. 94 within and involving the host organization. At the same time, he also functions (as already noted) in a status higher than that he usually occupied at home and with, either realized or unrealized, differences in his own power, authority, and influence. At best, the role of the advisor-consultant is ambiguous, both for the performer and for those he advises. In the cross—cultural situation, it usually puts the advisor into a position of relatively high status where he has opportunity to interact with nationals of extremely high rank. Just as he may not know how to play the role of consultant most effectively, the nationals may be equally uninformed on how to make the best use of a consultant. On the other hand, the presence of the American may facilitate both personal and professional plans for specific nationals. Some may want the American to make or be identi== fied as having made certain decisions. Then, if the consequences, are not favorable, the American gets the blame. But, if the conse— quences are favorable, nationals desire the credit for making the decision. As a result, the nationals may keep the decision—making process and identification of the decision makers fairly ambiguous. Nationals with whom the American builds his initial relationships may also confound or obscure the scene. Those patterned or structured channels most readily available to the newcomer may, in the end, constrain him from making contact with a wider range of nationals more typical of the situation or more knowledgeable about such matters as power, authority, and influence.1 As he begins to move out of structured into broader, more per- vasive relationships, new problems confront the American. Where there is a shortage of trained nationals, he may find a rapid turnover in personnel—-the man or men he begins working with today may tomorrow 1Ruth Useem, “Interpersonal Relationships Between Indians and Americans in India, " in Application of Psychiatric Insights to Cross- glgtural Communication (New York: Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, Symposium No. 7, April, 1961), pp. 395—407. 95 be transferred to another part of the government. Thus, the American not only loses ground in terms of relationships, but whatever insight he may have obtained on power structure and decision—making may now be obsolete with the shift in per sons.‘ Similarly, in a new situation and culture, it is difficult to distinguish between the "leaders who are i 'comer's' and those whose future is mostly behind them. " Those with Insight on Decision-aMaking. By our criteria, at least eight of the men had some insight on the decision—making process; we might say that “they had insight and knew that they did. " In addition they have some characteristics in common. Six of the eight are educated in nonatechnical fields-”two in educational administration, two in inter— national relations, one in economics and pre=law, and the sixth in social science and public administration. Given this type of education, we would expect them to have more than superficial knowledge of organizational power structures, authority, and influence. Of the six, two had worked for the United States government a number of years (one having had nearly 10 years overseas experience as a civilian administrative employee with the United States armed forces); three had been educational administrators immediately prior to going abroad (two at the dean or assistant deanlevel in institutions of higher edu- cation, and thethird as executive director of a national educational organization), and the sixth had been an employee of a large municipal urban redevelopment program. - They had gained experience with several organizations and, in addition, they had worked at levels in the United States where it was important in their success to know and appreciate the subtleties of decision-making. Analysis of the factors associated with the two technically trained persons who exhibited decision making insight further illuminates the lCleveland, (it a_._1., p. 145. 96 propositions advanced. Let us consider RR, educated in engineering and architecture, and DD, a marine biologist. RR seldom worked in the fields of engineering and archi- tecture where he had been educated. Early in his career he became interested in public administration. -He had held a variety of positions at everaincreasing levels of responsibility both in and out of government. At the close of World War II, he served abroad in military government. Ten years later, he went abroad with-ICA as a public administration advisor. At the completion of his first tour, he was transferred halfway around the world to become chief of a public administration division in one of the larger USOM's. .In his own terms, he has become a ”generalist. " Through his variety of experiences, domestic and foreign, he acquired a breadth of understanding of how people relate to each other within and outside of formal organizations. DD acquired similar insights through somewhat different experiences, beginning with his life as a youth in central Europe, the son of fairly wealthy parents. His level of status in society and education involved him in many cross=cultural experiences, within Europe, early in life. He spoke three or four'languages at an early age. From 10 years of age, he was traveling about Europe on his own. His early ambition was to be an art historian, and he studied toward this end. He spent much of World War II in a German con— centration camp, which experience, he explains, caused him to turn to a second career possibility-="my hidden love to be a man of science. ” Emigrating to the United States, he enrolled in zoology at a midwestern university Where he earned the Ph. D. Before going abroad with‘ICA, he had engaged in a year's consultative activities with a foreign government. On his ICA assignment, he worked with the nationals, other ICA technicians and reported satisfactory working relations with the former colonial technicians who were still present. He credited his language facility as being partly responsible for his "acceptance" and degree of success abroad, both with the nationals and the colonials. But he gives most credit to his earlier experiences: ”you see in me a person who has gone through two lives as it were, and in the second one using much of what happened in the first. " 97 The data about these men makes a case not for education, or experience, or any other factor alone, but for a combination of factors. How a man perceives a situation and what he sees are functions of how he has been taught (or has learned) to see, what he wants to see, and the group influences upon him at the time. If you are not looking for something, there is a strong possibility that it will never come to your attention. As far as decision-making processes were concerned, this must have been the case with most of the men in this study. Summary 1. Men differ in what they use to determine how well they are doing in technical assistance. Some choose "own judgment" criteria; more depend primarily on acceptance by nationals and/or Americans. Those with a non-technical education are more likely to use a combi- nation of criteria. Those who have worked for profit—making organi~ zations before going abroad are more likely to depend upon personal acceptance. 2. “Own judgment" criteria include performance in relation to theory, comparison of results with objectives, and quality of the finished product. Those who use acceptance factors more frequently mention being accepted on social and personal grounds rather than professional, and are more concerned with acceptance by nationals than by Americans. 3. Three-fourths of the men cite education, experience and/or interest in dealing with people as one 'of the personal attributes most important in furthering their work. Some of these also mention pro- fessional, technical, or manual skill. Those with prior overseas service do not View such experience as being as important as professional com- petency or experience in dealing with people. 98 4- Although they recognize the importance of whatever experience they had in dealing with people, nearly twice as many men feel adequate in their technical fields as those who believe themselves adequate in duties involving relations with people. Among the areas of inadequacies, they list technical duties peripheral to their field, teaching, administer— ing others, and administrative details. 5.- "Starting from scratch" is the most challenging aspect of technical assistance work for two—thirds of the men. They prefer jobs that provide opportunity to use their skills, initiative, and abilities. 6. Among the values they tried to introduce in connection with their work, Americans most frequently cite items relating to professional matters, and, to a lesser extent, democratic values in the treatment of people and issues. 7. Principal sources of frustration are the American organization and other Americans (particularly administrators, administrative sup= port people, and the Washington staff). To a lesser extent, they are frustrated by the work—related attitudes and behaviors of host nationals and by the lack of technical facilities and resources. Frustration with the American "system" relate to inexperience with complex bureaucracy, conflicts between career and temporary employees, unfamiliarity with the behavior and expectations associated with a new status, and lack of insight on the deciSion-making process in what seemed to be rationally conceived organizations. 8. For most men, frustrations began to mount or peaked later in their tours, usually after the first months. Frustrations seem related to the length of time a man expected to be in the country, and as such, to the length of time he says it took to learn his job. Most Z—year tour men, for example, indicate that it took from 6 months to a year to learn their job. 99 9. Men respond to frustrations partially as a function of their source. They are more likely to change or try to change the situation in the case of American-sourced frustrations, and to adapt or change themselves when frustrations stem from the nationals. Some work off frustrations with technical assistance field projects not part of their regular duties. 10. Most men are not aware of factors in the culture which would facilitate their work, but identify a range of items which interfere With their objectives. 11. Only eight men meet the criteria indicating they have signifi— cant insight on the decision-making processes related to their work roles. Most say they concentrated on persons at the technical level. They estimate they had little, if any, influence on decisions, the decision makers, and the decision-making process. Men exhibiting insight and exercising influence on decisions generally are non- technical in educational orientation, had experience in several organi- zations, and had worked at levels in government or non—profit institu— tions where knowledge of decision—making is important to success. CHAPTER IV WORK-RELATED INTERACTION WITH NATIONALS IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE American technical assistance personnel abroad maintain or ‘ attempt to maintain work—related interaction in two directions--with host nationals and with fellow Americans in the USOM. They depend upon the nationals for a number of job-related objectives. The nationals are the recipients or targets of the Americans' efforts; j some serve as intermediaries between the technician and other nationals; others frequently advise and assist technicians in their work. In this chapter, we consider three variables related to their interaction with nationals: Importance of language, characteristics of the technical assistance specialist, and the nature of close personal relationships . Use of Language Whatever else is involved, interaction with host nationals depends upon language. The interaction takes place in a variety of situations, formal and informal, within and outside the work organi- zations. The language may be English, that of the host country, or a third tongue, such‘as that of a former colonial power. The inter- action may involve interpreters, and these may be nationals, Americans, or citizens of a third country. In this section, we examine the value of a foreign language for the men and their adaptations in the use of English and gestures. 100 101 Value of Local Language. This study clearly emphasizes the difficulty of generalizing about the value of a foreign language for the technical assistance man abroad. Whether knowing the language is a prerequisite to performance depends upon a number of variables. 1 Useem identifies these variables as length of expected stay, level of society in which the person circulates, concentration of Americans, social power, mobility of the American, opportunity provided to learn, and availability of qualified instructors.2 Data in this study support the idea that knowledge of a foreign language is most important in those countries where Spanish or French is the principal language in government, education, and business, and is relatively unimportant for work purposes in all other countries represented in the sample. In those situations where the American's work necessitates direct, daily interaction with the general population rather than with educated persons in the governmental, education, or business communities, knowledge of the local language increases in importance. The languages of the countries involved in this study are Spanish (all Latin American countries), French (mostly former French colonial areas), English (mostly former colonial areas), and Farsi, Arabic,, Thai, Indonesian, Korean, Turkish, and German. Respondents estimated their language facility (aural, speaking, reading, writing) at the start, mid-way, and end of tour. Five had a listening and speaking facility in a language other than English that exceeded the bare minimum. Three of these knevarench, one having 1A recent publication which de-emphasizes the pervasive im- portance of language is Cleveland, at a}. ,_p. 293. 2Minutes of MSU Overseas Orientation and Training Committee, May 20, 1960. Office of Dean of International Programs, Michigan State University, East Lansing. lOZ learned it as a child in~Europe, another while in a previous assignment in a French-speaking country, and the third in connection with graduate work in the United States. Of the two fluent inSpanish, one had learned Spanish as a child (before learning English), the other had 8 years prior experience in Latin America. As we might expect, four of these five say language was the skill or one of the skills most important in furthering the work. The exception, who had learned French in a previous assignment, was transferred to a regional post from which he had to work in many countries, only in some of which was French the principal language of business discourse. Fourteen indicate that some knowledge of the local language helped them to get along and live in the culture and enriched their social experi= ences. Eight others feel that some language knowledge increased their acceptance as professionals or aided them in teaching, translating, and supervising. Five depended upon the foreign language for all inter— action. Four of these are the same four mentioned above; the fifth was in a European country where Germanl(studied in college and while on the job) was extremely instrumental in his consultant role. Most men discount the idea that some knowledge of the language handicapped them in any way, although two say it tended to put the nationals "on guard,- " and another comments, "there is the illusion that if you can speak Spanish you also understand the problems. "1 Eleven declare an ability or increased ability in the local language would have helped them be more independent and secure, i. e. , less dependent upon interpreters or their own inadequate language facility. Another six would have used an increased ability to extend their range of professional activities, particularly in teaching and consulting. 1Fayerweather develops this point in analyzing the problems of the Spanish-speaking American working in- Mexico, pp. 191-192. Six others believe an increased ability would have increased or accelerated their impact. Several factors contribute to the importance of Spanish in the Latin American countries. Some Latin American countries have had institu— tions of higher education for centuries. These operate in Spanish, and formal education does not necessitate study in another language. Those who hold high level/positions in government and business frequently do not speak or are not competent in English. A similar process occurs to a lesser extent in the former French colonial areas. Further, the American technician in Latin America most frequently is assigned to a servicio. These are staffed by Latin Americans, many of whom do not speak English. Yet, North Americans frequently occupy the key supervisory roles. The importance of Spanish emerges in responses to related questions. For instance, four persons (all who had served in Latin America) list language as one of the most important things to learn when going abroad. Also, four of the five persons who say the local language was the factor in which they felt most inadequate had been stationed in Latin America. The fifth, who did not admit to any other inadequacies, had been in India and felt his cultural experience, as well as his impact in remote areas, would have been enriched had he known more Hindi. With the exception of the two already fluent in Spanish, all tech— nicians assigned to Latin America studiedSpanish formally, and more or less regularly, during their first year abroad. About the same situation prevails with those in French- speaking areas. All but one person (born in Europe and fluent in French since a child), continued to study French fairly regularly. In addition, the three who were based in Cambodia began to study the local language. Conversely, only three of the twelve in English—speaking areas made any formal attempt to study a local language or dialect. 104 All but one of the seven persons stationed in other language areas made some attempt to study the» local language, mostly to increase their personal credibility and to facilitate daily living, shopping, servant, and traveling problems. The men express a general lack of enthusiasm for language learn- ing, and they progressed slowly. Using‘ "speaking" ability as a criterion, only five persons in addition to the five noted earlier achieved a fluency beyond the bare minimum. These included two each who studied Spanish and French, and the one who studied German. For the majority the conclusion is obvious: The principal medium of discourse either directly with nationals, or with them through-inter— preters, was English. Adaptations in English and Gestures. Most of the men seem sensitive as to how they used English when speaking to nationals or working with interpreters. Twenty—one say they exercised caution in their choice of words, phrases and sentences, avoiding lengthy words and constructions. Sixteen emphasize the value of clear enunciation and slow rates of speech. - Four point out the difficulty of making generalizations about their speech behavior, saying that they adapted vocabulary and rate of speech to specific circumstances and individuals. Hall makes a case for the importance of "the silent language" in cross-cultural communication. He includes gestures, spatial relation— ships among persons and handling of time among his concerns and observes that ,“Most'Americans‘. areohly dimly aware Of this Silent language even though they use it every day. ”1 This is the case with these respondents. While only eight held it unnecessary to be concerned with the way they used English, twenty—two either ignored or deemed it not important to be concerned about their gestures when interacting with 1Edward T. Hall, The Silent Language (Greenwich, Comm: Premier Books, 1961), p. 10. 105 nationals. Nine indicate an awareness of different meanings or taboos associated with various gestures or body attitudes. Characteristics of Technical-Assistance Specialists Interaction depends upon at least two persons—-in this case, the American and the host national. In this section, we consider these characteristics of the technical assistance specialist with respect to his interaction with nationals; His self image, the assumptions he makes about communication, his cultural and professional biases, and the extent he functions as a middleman in the host organization. Self Image. A considerable amount of folklore has developed around the notion that the typical American wants most of all to be liked and accepted. Table 11 reflects the responses to the question: 7"For what would you like to have most nationals with whom you worked remember you? " Table 11. How Americans would like to be remembered by host nationals. Image Number Personal and social qualities: 12 (sense of humor; honest; frank; easy to get along with, even temper, congenial, my piano playing) Professional competency and accomplishment: l4 (improving standards, help with new equipment, technical improvements) Both personal and professional qualities: 8 (capable, qualified, and a hard worker; for writing a book and parties at my home; for increasing respect for USA) 106 Analysis of the responSes to this question and another, "For what do you think you are remembered?" reveals that for twenty-three men the way they believe they are remembered is the way they would like to be remembered, or perceive themselves, as technical assistance persons. Of these, eleven would like to be remembered for their personal and social qualities exclusively as opposed to professional competence and accomplishment. \ These self images are intimately associated with the images they hold of themselves as Americans and the desires they have to be simul= taneously both unique and representative Americans. Most respondents hold the View that the nationals they met, as a result of the kind of 1 Americans to whom they had been exposed, had developed unfavorable impressions about Americans and the United States. This challenged the respondents; they tried to correct these impressions with their own behavior. In their own eyes, they demonstrated what most Americans were ”really like. " At the same time, they possessedan equally strong desire to establish their own unique individuality and personality. These comments reflect such views and behavior: "I think I am most remembered for being an American who did not conform to the preconceived patterns they have of Americans. ” ”. . . that Americans are not all ogres. " ". . . primarily as being more like them than most Ameri- cans who come to work in . " "We entertained our colleagues a great deal; it was helpful because it reflected in kind comments about Americans; the parties were appreciated by the hungry and thirsty nationals. " Assumptions About Communication. Persons relate themselves to others partly as a function of the assumptions they make, consciously 107 or unconsciously, about the process of communication. These assump- tions can be described as source, receiver, and interaction orientations to communication.1 In this case, source orientation represents concern for the originator of the message as distinguished from being mostly concerned about the receiver of the message or the interaction process involved. Thirty— one men believe personal relationships were important to their work. Eighteen represent a source orientation in that they believe such relationships helped build their own credibility and acceptance with nationals. Another nine value personal relationships as a means of establishing mutual confidence, respect and rapport, in other words, an interaction viewpoint. Four hold personal relationships important as a way of getting to know host nationals, i. e. , receiver orientation. SOURCE ORIENTATION . "If personal relationships are poor, you tend to get a passive resistance; they can negate everything you try to do. People appreciate fairness—=—regardless of rank, position, or education. Hence, people need to learn and understand your code or rules; they need to get to know you. ” "Personal relationships were extremely important in terms of their willingness to accept not only agreement but disagreement. They contributed to a realization that I was as concerned with the success of the program as they were. It also helped to convince them that I was objective and not a soft touch. " INTERACTION ORIENTATION ”They were extremely important to establish rapport. Without them you didn't accomplish your work; through them you got an idea of where and who were obstacles and where solutions lay. n 1David K. Berlo, The Process of Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart 81 Winston, 1960), pp. 115-121. "Out of interaction you get a revelation of how the other person comes to his position and how he supports his position. You have opportunity to illustrate and document for a specific person in a specific situation, and freedom to put thoughts into sequence and arrange presentations as ideas are developed. If you come at this formally, you have a rigid presentation, as in documents. " RECEIVER ORIENTATION ”Personal relations are of the utmost importance to obtain an awareness of their personality and ways of thinkinga—this is basic. If you are not aware, you can unconsciously injure their pride and close their minds to what you have to offer. " ”Personal relations were important so that you got to know the people and with whom you could work to get changes accomp~ lished. “ These Americans report three major approaches to building their professional influence with nationals in the work organization. Some , mention more than one approach: Approach Number of Mentions By working with them, meeting them in the work situation, and/ or by asking about problems 15 By taking a business—like approach, demon- strating professional competence, and frank discussion 13 By accepting them as equals, showing interest in them personally, helping them enhance their position, doing things not called upon to do 9 Although these categories are not discrete, they reflect different orientations to the work and, quite likely, different self views, as these two comments sugge st: “I started out by keeping my mouth shut; by asking for advice, and when I felt the time was ripe, I suggested some things; eventually, by suggesting directly or by a round—about way that things might be changed. “ 109 "I tried awfully hard to be right; I didn't give them a chance to catch me off base; I tried to demonstrate graphically so that they could understand what I was saying; basically, it is a mutual acceptance which grew up through experience and a degree of mutual trust. ” Some Americans value personal relationships for other reasons. They help some keep in touch with reality such as this first-time abroad technician's reactions to the Middle East: "The personal relations helped keep me sane; so many of the people you worked with were caricatures of the (host) society“- cardboard figures that moved back and forth; you got the feelings that you were dealing with things; but by talking with a national you knew, and his wife and children, these were different people—=you developed an insight into the [national's] way of thinking and they into the American way; it bought me to face the fact that I was dealing with human beings. " In a communication sense, humans desire response or "feedback" to their communicative efforts. Personal,relationships, with face—tow face-contact, facilitates this. For some of the persons in this study, their relationships may have approached or become what Perl= mutter terms an "authentic interpersonal relationship.”1 He posits that most people going abroad exhibit a wish for a reciprqcated interahuman experience with which he associates the following qualities: (a) The foreigner is seen as another person in his own right with a life history in another culture, with culture-determined drives, attitudes and values” (b) The other person is distinguished from idealized, feared, models and from current stereotypes. (c) There is a sense of sharing of the important feelings and dilemmas of life. (d) There is a desire to continue to communicate with and relate to persons of this country. lHoward V. Perlmutter, ”Person to Person: A Psychological Analysis of Cross-Cultural Relationships. " (Unpublished Mss. Topeka, Kans.: The Menninger Foundation, October 1960). 110 Such relationships may help the American to define his role and role-activities, or he may find it necessary or desirable to move out of these structures to learn or do his work. In so doing, the Americans in this study usually picked up relationships which they like to perceive they accomplished on their own and were uniquely desirable in both a personal and professional sense. Cultural and Professional Biases. The characteristics of the host nationals with whom the Americans feel they had the greatest influence, as well as how they built this influence, mirror the technician's own cultural and professional biases. Those named as "most influenced" were located in the host organization, as follows: At the technical level 2.5 At the policy level 10 Outside the organization 7 None of those influenced were outside of the American's own field or educational orientation, with twenty-two Americans saying that those influenced were ”in my field” and ten others describing them as "partly in my field. " Two Americans failed to respond to this question. Two— thirds of those influenced had college or university degrees, some at advanced levels. One-third of the total group had been educated outside the host country. Along with his professional and educational orientations, the American abroad functions in a subtle cross-cultural situation. Each American comes out of an environment and certain socializing experi— ences that for him constitute a sub—culture of customs, traditions, and practices. To this extent, others may perceive him as being different from other Americans. At the same time, he may be unaware of the ways he differs from Americans who come from other parts of the country, of different occupations, or of varying ethnic origins. lll Abroad, the American moves intoa totally new culture that also has distinct sub-cultures, some of which he may not recognize.1 One of his problems is to distinguish in the new situation what are the behaviors appropriate to the general culture and to the various sub= cultures. In his uncertainty, he frequently resorts to what would be expected in his sub-culture back home. These three cases illustrate the reactions to personal relationship problems abroad: An agriculturist, who had a minimum of personal relationships with nationals of a country where Islam was the principal religion, mirrors the home-visiting traditions and values of the middle west: "It took quite a while to get acquainted. Personal relation‘= ships were very important so that they would take you into their confidence and tell you things. I felt that purdah for women was a mistake, since women couldn't come to your social affairs. It was a social handicap and I felt badly about not getting to meet the wives of the nationals with whom I worked. " But a scientist, accustomed to working in a large government agency where social relations; if any, were independent of the work, reacts in terms of these values: ”Social affairs were not too generally helpful; perhaps in some cases. Some people seemed to need buttering up in order to get along with them. I hated to do this. If people get to like you, they probably will be more cooperative. ” On the other hand, a scientist with prior experience abroad reveals a more cosmopolitan interaction pattern: "I don't know if I knew what they were really like. I prob— ably have lived as much with as any one might; I have lFayerweather, observing the value placed on personalized rela- tions in Mexican business affairs, notes that, "They contrast with the impersonal approach to much of life which characterizes the United States culture; an approach whichvleads to such observations as 'Let's keep personalities out of this,‘ or 'I don't want to put this on a personal basis!“ Fayerweather, p. 173. llZ gone to brothels with them, have drunk with them, and have been in their houses; I have eaten their food, held their children on my knee, and have swatted mosquitoes with them, and have taught them how to skindive . . . what more can you do? I occasionally asked a monk. " With the growth and continuance of international activities in most walks of life, some observers posit the emergence of a "third culture, "1 denoting the area of activity, values, norms, and customs in which nationals of various countries come together for diplomatic, cooperative assistance, business, or other reasons. This “cultural area" is peopled by persons who manifest values, orientations, behaviors, and skills unique to the kinds of transactions which must take place if the respective missions and purposes are served. The American technician abroad operates within and through this I'culture” and of necessity must distinguish among behaviors appropriate to this specific situation as well as to the general culture. The Middleman Function. Americans who have worked abroad in technical assistance sometimes report that their function might best be described as that of a communication middleman. Being more of a "free agent" than host nationals, they move in, around, and out of the organizations somewhat independent of hierarchy, protocol, and customs. In so doing, they provide an informal but vital communication link among persons and offices that might otherwise find it difficult if not impossible to get together. An educational adviser observes this: “There is a gulf that separates the teacher and the ministry of education; I am sure that teachers and directors told me things in the hope that they would be communicated to the minister. They never openly suggested this, but you felt this is what they hoped. " 1John Useem, John D. Donahue, and Ruth Hill Useem. "Men in the Middle of the Third Culture: The Roles of American and Non—Western People in Cross—Cultural Administration, " Human Organization (forth- coming). 113 When queried about such experiences, thirteen denied having played this role at all, some insisting they went to lengths to avoid this; nineteen admit they did this to a limited extent, and two say they did this frequently. One explanation for the denials and uneasy admissions is that the phrasing of the question may have led them to feel that they should have avoided such behavior. ”While working abroad in technical assistance, some Americans have reported that their role sometimes might best be described as being a middleman in a communication sense== that is, through them communication between various persons and offices in the host organization took place. What was your experience ? " Another possibility is that they were not aware of doing this or did not appreciate the significant, catalytic aspects of such a role. This latter possibility would be consistent with their lack of insight on decision-=making processes within the organization. Of the twenty=one who engaged in the middleman role to some extent, thirteen had non-=technical education. One of the two who frequently served as a middleman was a training officer. He established good relations with the under secretary and the joint secretary of the host organization. Other people would ask him to "sound out" these two on propositions. In his training role, he kept in touch with all of the operating divisions in both the host and American organization. Fully aware of his middleman function, he facilitated its execution by establishing a regular meeting place in a restaurant for some of the persons involved. Nature of Close Personal Relationships Having described and analyzed the characteristics of the technical assistance specialist with respect to interaction with the host nationals 114 we now analyze how relationships develop, how the Americans define close relationships, characteristics of the nationals involved, how i Americans learn about the nationals, and the controls Americans exercise on personal relationships. ‘ How Relationships Develop. Relationships which Americans ( describe as close developed slowly for most Americans. Ten say it took up to 6 months, and eight up to a year. In three cases, the relationships were more than a year developing. Four persons say they established close relations within the first month. The Americansperceive that they took the initiative in develop: ing the relationships in fifteen cases, while in fifteen others they say it was a mutual effort. They credit the nationals with initiating close interaction in only two instances. Regardless of how initiated, in twenty=seven cases the Americans see the relationships as being reciprocal and partly so in four others. Characteristics of Close Relationships. Table 12 reports the classes of responses to the question:‘ "What are the characteristics of a personal relationship that you would term close?" Social activities emerge as the principal characteristic of relationships they term "close. " Characteristics of Nationals Involved. As a route to‘analysis of the interaction patterns, we asked the Americans to identify those nationals with whom they would ”let down their hair" in connection with their work. About half named one or more persons. The balance said they had no one or as a matter of policy would not "let down their hair" with anyone. We asked these, then, to name the person or persons with whom they would "come close to letting down their hair. " As the result of these questions, the thirty—four Americans named a total of forty—four individuals, twenty of whom they place in 115 Table 12. Characteristics of close personal relationships. Frequency Characteristic Mentioned Involves visits, entertaining in each other's homes i and/or involving families, and usually not dependent upon invitation. 22 Permissive relationship; open for discussion; marked by "objectivity, " individuals are close confidants 19 Feeling of mutual liking and respect; feel comfortable in each other's presence 12 Feel free to give, take, and ask favors; willing to ‘1 make commitments to each other; share responsi— 1* bilities ' 12 Conversation not limited to topics related to work 11 Engage in recreation and avocations together 10 Drink together 5 Shared interests, knowledge, values, attitudes 4 their immediate work sphere, twenty outside the immediate work sphere, and four who had no relation to..their work. Half of the persons named were younger than the American desig- nating them, with another twelve being ”about the same age. ” Half had been educated in the ”same field" as the American, with eight more in the "same general field. “ All except twelve had received all or part of their education outside the host country, sixteen in the United States, nine in Europe, and four in both Europe and the United States. In thirty—one of the cases, the persons named'”spoke English better than I spoke the local language, ” in five other instances, the principal local language was English. Forty of the persons were nationals of the host country; three were citizens of the former colonial 116 power, and one was third country national. The Americans describe thirty-one of the persons as having a modern, western orientation toward life, with-eleven others being modern but somewhat traditional. Most of the relationships were characterized by social inter= action, with reciprocal home visits and entertaining being reported in thirty-five instances, and no social interaction in only four cases. After checking each of the persons named on the points listed above, we asked,- "What else might you say about this person?" This question elicited nearly a hundred comments which we organized into three categories: Identification with American values, identification with United States, and status in host society. , The major category, identification with American values, included some thirty—four statements or descriptions such as, welleeducated, wellwinformed, honest, hard—working, active, progressive, sincere, genuine, pleasant, and a good sense of humor. Among those identifying with the United States were five who had lived or worked in the United States, five who had plans to come to the states, and three instances of the American and the national having known each other in the states. Status in the host society included eleven persons who were marginal to the existing society, government, and culture, and seven others with an upper middle class identification. We index marginality by such comments as "from wrong patt of the country, " "opposed to government in power, " "politically unacceptable, ” and ”had deviated from his family structure. " References to "high standard of living, ” "highly placed in society, " and "one of the new middle class" are typical of the upper middle class category. Briefly, the typical national with whom Americans feel "most close" Or "would let down their hair" is about the same age or slightly younger than the American and has been educated abroad in the American‘s field 117 or in subjects closely allied to it. He speaks English, is both modern and westernmoriented, and holds many of the same social and occu— pational values as the American. Another way of describing these nationals is to say that generally they are persons most like the ( Americans—-in language, education, orientation, interests, occupations, values, and the like. It is appropriate here to speculate about the process of developing personal relationships and to point up the possible significance for the American of interacting with nationals possessing the characteristics described. The American abroad has little to guide him in his choice of nationals most helpful or instrumental in his work. The job or mission may be uncertain, his contacts in the culture may be limited or re= stricted by language or other barriers, and he may encounter established patterns of relationships. Some nationals with whom he associates he may learn, sooner or later, are self—seeking, some are misinformed, and some may be offended by what he does or does not do. The kind of personal relationship which gives him comfort and security in his personal life may be of no consequence in or it may be detrimental to I his professional expectations. The person who seeks out and associates with the American be— cause he is marginal to his society may be an extremely poor informant on and interpreter of his own society-"or he may be extremely objective, or he may be an innovator and an effective agent of change. But if the American is not aware of the marginality, for example, he may rarely test the reality of the situation. He may take refuge in the relationship. The indefinite, open—ended nature of most technician’s positions abroad stimulate the American to foster and maintain a range of personal relationships with nationals. If the American organization fails to make clear what his job is or how he should do it, the national is a highly visible and tangible hope of help in resolving the question of what to do. 118 He tends to interact with those with education, training, experience, He can talk with these persons. Most and values similar to his own. technicians concentrate their interactions with nationals at the technical levels. As a consequence, they interact minimally with those most influential in generating, modifying, or implementing policies associated with the technological advances the American hopes to achieve. How Americans Learn About Nationals. Two=thirds of the Ameri= cans say they used social approaches exclusively or in combination with other methods to learn what the host nationals with whom they had close personal relationships were “really like. “ Social activities include visiting in their home, entertaining them in ”my" home, drinking together, playing games and sports together, and bestowing gifts. More impersonal approaches include reading about or reading the work of the nationals, asking others about them, observ-= ation, and listening. Within the work context some mention formal and informal inter= viewing, traveling together, working side-by=side, and reviewing work accomplishments. Generally, the techniques employed suggest previously developed patterns of behavior and assumptions about people. .For in— stance: “You can talk with them; observe their reactions; note their tone; note how well they listen; how well they take hold; how well they followed through on instructions; you soon could identify the boondogglers. " ”If you were halfway relaxed with a person you could trust, perhaps you could exchange ideas . . . just like here in the If you couldn't do this, then it was hard to exchange ideas U. S. . . . just like here, too; some of the nationals were rascals and scamps, just like here. " Two-thirds of the men feel they had been fairly to completely successful in getting. nationals to reveal how they really felt, attributing most of their success to good personal relations. 119 In their techniques of learning about and how nationals felt, the Americans reiterate the emphasis on social approaches and close personal relationships. Eighteen say social affairs were useful in accomplishing the work; another eight "to some extent,- " and eight, "no. ." They tend to differentiate between the value of a few people getting together to chat over a few drinks as compared with the futility or waste of time some associate with large cocktail parties: "Cocktail parties, no; but sitting around after dinner in a country hotel drinking beer and talking about everything but It brings you on a closer personal basis your profession, yes. with them and things come out you wouldn't be aware of other~= wise. ” ”I don't use that method to gain my ends; I like to have people come to my house because I like people. I like to have people come to my house and say to themselves, 'By God, this man from the U. S. is friendly.‘ Many Americans feel that they got to be liked; that's fine, but first you must have If you can get the friendship after respect, their respect. . and I doubt if you can get then it is all well and good . friendship without respect. ” Several Americans place a great deal of confidence in social drinking and what they seem to perceive as the differential effect of alcohol on men's tongues, i. e. , such affairs loosen the tongue of the national without affecting your own.1 These are typical comments: "It's amazing how drinks will loosen tongues, and if you train yourself to stand-a great deal of liquor, then the situation is excellent. “ "When a person has a couple of drinks in him, he is more and will say things that he You can judge At apt to be the way he really is . would not ordinarily, or when he is cold sober. them. Naturally, you had to be a better drinker than they. a social function, you learned a lot of what was going on behind the scenes. ” J. . . . . . No one discussed the posmble consequences of affairs in which the national for religious or other reasons would drink fruit juice all evening while the American imbibed alcoholic beverages. 120 These techniques and viewpoints reflect American patterns of social congeniality. However, some men consciously planned and operated so as to influence and manipulate, while AL saw himself as being different from the‘"public relations guy who deliberately goes about this. " He claims, "no particular'plan; as a minister's son, Ihad been used to situations since a boy where I had to get to know and get along with people. " Control of Personal Relationships. At least three factors influence the extent of Americans' interaction with host nationals and the degree of Time and control or restraint they exercise with respect to these: energy available; restrictions on expressions of feelings, and what nationals wanted from Americans. Time and Energy Available. Two—thirds of the men say they tried to exercise control over their personal contacts. Although techniques varied, all believed they had been completely or fairly successful. Seven exercised selectively in extending and accepting social invitations, six by what they chose to talk about with specific persons, and five by systematic selection of individuals with whom they built relations. This is an example: "It would have been very easy to over extend yourself, with both Americans and nationals-—there was a never-ending round of parties. , You could,easily accrue-more obligations than you I think it more important to know 15 people well Some members of the USOM c ould pay off. than a greater number superficially. seemed to feel that the more they associated socially with nationals the more they were demonstrating that they were really fitting in and doing a job; actually, it was only socializing, not influencing. " Personal relationships require time and involve choices; if you Initially, the spend time with A, you have less time to spend with B. American abroad finds that he has little time or choice in his interpersonal Initially, he moves into a set or series of previously relationships . 12.1 determined and patterned relationships with nationals—-people who have become accustomed to meeting, and in a sense, socializing newly arrived Americans. These relationships help the American establish rapport and teamwork, build mutual confidence, and get insight into what is happen— ing. For the stranger in a strange land, it is also logical to speculate that the American finds. such interaction comforting and rewarding. When in an ambiguous situation, surrounded by unfamiliar cues, one grasps the familiar. These comments note some of the important dimensions: "I did not try to establish a buddy-buddy relationship. I prefer a wide range of friends rather than a select crew on whom Idote.. I had a goodly number of close friends in order to have a confidence that is consistent and operates in formal, informal, official, professional and social realms. In this way, I could meet persons in different situations in the same person-to-person fashion-=so I could call on the telephone, or call in person. " "They were very important because one gained insight into what was wrong and what was right; you never went down a path in an area where you should not be if you had someone to tell you frankly whether something is wanted. “ It is also possible that the Americans interact with these host nationals because it was easier to communicate with them than others, i. e. , it takes less energy and the costs are lower.1 Factors lowering the costs are the availability and English facility of the nationals, and the commonality of interests, orientations, and values which grow out of similar educational and professional interests. 1Schramm offers a similar method of predicting communication behavior, i. e. , that persons attend to or participate in communication situations as a function of a fraction which he terms the Fraction of Selection. Wilbur Schramm, (ed.), The Process and Effects of Mass Communication (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1954), p. 19. 122 Restriction on Expression of Feelings. Some Americans restrict— ed expression of their feelings to nationals. One—third say they never revealed their feelings, and another third report they did so with reservations. The restrictions or reservations most usually relate to criticisms of the USOM and American aid program and comments about political events or personalities in the host country. These quotes depict how two men differ on this issue: "I could get them to tell me how they really felt by confid- ing in them; I would tell them something that I didn't want to get beyond them . . . and they in turn would do the same with me.- " ”I chat a great bit and use this as a technique. If I want to, I can chat for quite a while and not say a darn thing. " What Nationals Wanted. Some host nationals tried to use or work through Americans to achieve ends of their own not related to the work. Nationals asked two classes of favors: . (a) Personal advancement-=- promotions, job, trip to United States, recommendations, salary ad— vances, borrow money; and (b) personal service such as buying articles, mailing packages, using government property, and exchanging money. These are disparate reactions to such requests: "I usually went along and helped them out when I could. These were little things and if you didn't do them, I didn't quite know what would happen. ” "If you give them an inch, they take a mile; you can't let them get away with this. I said, 'Nothing doing. '“ Overall, one-third of the Americans say they invoked existing regulations with or without comment, another third cooperated with discretion, either considering each case on its merit or ”just going along, " and the balance had nothing to say on the matter. The picture we have of the nationals, based on the Americans' descriptions, permit us to speculate about why these nationals, rather than others, engaged in what the technicians believe were close, reciprocal relationships. Given the kind of persons the Americans describe, interaction with Americans may satisfy cosmopolitan tastes developed while study- ing or traveling abroad. They may seek opportunity to move upward in their own society, and, if necessary, outward. Association with Americans may enable them to identify with or gain access to people they perceive as important, perhaps facilitate their own chances for advancement, provide them with inside information about USOM opera= tions and, for some, ways of exchanging or receiving personal favors. Some welcome the opportunity to practice and improve their English. Summary 1. Unless the principal language of the country is Spanish or French, knowledge of a foreign language is perceived as relatively unimportant for the technical assistance specialist if his mission primarily involves dealing with educated persons in governmental, educational, or business organizations of the host country. Where Spanish or French is the official language (or is one of the official languages), then knowledge of that language is instrumental to pro- fessional achievement as well as personal satisfaction. 2. While these Americans seem sensitive to their use of English with nationals, most do not reflect concern about the gestures they did or did not use. 3. Characteristics of the American affecting the interaction in— clude his self image, his assumptions about communication, his cultural and professional biases, and the extent he functions as a middleman in the host organization: 124 (a) Twenty-=three men believe the way they are remembered by host nationals is the way they would like to be remembered. Of these, eleven would like to be remembered for their personal and social qualities exclusively. Most of the men exhibit a desire to be simul— taneously both unique and representative Americans. (b) Half of the men are source—oriented, in a communication sense; they engage in personal relationships to build their own credi— bility and acceptance. Another nine value personal relationships to establish rapport, while four see these as the means of getting to know host nationals. (c) Most nationals influenced by the Americans were at the techni— cal level and none of these were outside the Americans' own field or educational orientation. (d) Few men either recognize the opportunity they had to be middlemen within and among the host organization or seem to appreciate the value or significance of this catalytic role. 4. Close personalized relationships with nationals developed slowly for most, and the Americans perceive these as being initiated by them- selves or mutually. The most frequently described characteristics of these close relationships are: Visiting and entertaining in each other's homes with conversations not limited to work topics; a permissive re- lationship marked by mutual confidence; and a feeling of mutual liking and respect, of being comfortable in each other's presence, of sharing responsibilities and willingness to give and take. 5. The typical national with whom respondents felt most close, or with whom they would "let down their hair, " was the same age or slightly younger than the American, had been educated outside his own country in the American's field or in subjects closely akin to it, spoke English better than the American spoke the national tongue, was both modern and western-oriented, and held many of the same social and 125 occupational values as the Americans. . In other words, they are persons most like the Americans in language, education, orientations, interests, occupations, and values. 6. Two-thirds say they used social approaches exclusively or in combination with other methods to learn about nationals with whom they worked. Factors influencing their range of relationships include time and energy, restrictions they felt necessary to place on expression of their feelings, and their ability to cope with personal requests of the nationals. 7. Americans derive satisfaction out of identifying nationals and building relationships with them in addition to the ways in which they perceive the nationals facilitated their work. In this sense, the nationals with whom the Americans interacted help initiate them into their new social and professional roles. CHAPTER V WORK-RELATED INTERACTION WITH OTHER AMERICANS IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE When an American goes abroad in technical assistance, he enters a situation considerably different from almost any professional position previously held. As part of the "bridge" between two societies, he becomes subject to at least two bureaucracies, his own and that of the host government. His own organization recruits, transports, briefs, and administers him (including salary, evaluation, travel arrangements and the like), while the other responds, favorably or unfavorably, to his professional activities. In so doing, the host organization also subtly (and sometimes openly) evaluates, rewards, and sanctions aspects of both his professional and personal behavior. Stresses often develop between the USOM and the host government, between the technician and the USOM, and between him and his hosts. , Within the USOM, stresses develop betweenadministrators and tech- nicians, and among members of the different work groups. People advise the technician to "go slowly, " yet almost everyone desires rapid progress. The technician feels a (strong urge to demonstrate, to produce, to leave his professional mark. In earlier chapters, we reported that one-half of the men were disappointed in their expectations in going abroad. We noted that one- half cite the American organization and system as their principal sources of frustration. These findings bear directly upon the issues we present here in three sections: Work—related relationships with Americans, technician's perceptions of the American organization, and personal relationships with Americans, including the wife and family. 126 127 Quality of Relationships The system by which the organization manages the technician generates frustrations and structures expectations. While it leads technicians to criticize Americans and the American approach to techni- cal assistance, it does not disrupt relationships with superiors, peers, and subordinates. In other words, the Americans abroad direct their criticisms against the organization as a system. We explore these four aspects of relationships with Americans: Antagonisms against the system, relation of frequency to quality of interaction, factors affecting frequency of interaction, other factors affecting quality of interaction, and the technician's perceptions of the American organization. Antagonisms Against the System. Of the seventeen technicians who earlier named the American organization and other Americans as major sources of frustration, only two report poor relationships between them— selves and their superiors; none had poor relationships with peers. These findings support the thesis that frustrated individuals direct their antagonism against the organization rather than specific individuals with whom they interact in the American organization abroad. One young public administration advisor describes his relations with superiors as running from "good to bad, with the most frustrating experiences of the tour being involved with the mission paper work. " He likewise labels his relations with peers as "poor, but because of the system, not the people. “ Two men who list their relationships with superiors as "poor,” illustrate some specific instances of irritation not only with the "system" but with two classes of persons not included in the superior and peer evaluations. These are the support people in the missions (auditors, comptrollers, personnel clerks, administrative officers, etc.) and "those in Washington, " meaning the administrative, technical, and 128 clerical staffs in the headquarters. Much frustration stems from prob= lems encountered while being processed and moved into the first assignment abroad. These are notable examples: AE accepted a position as an educational advisor in a country of the Far East. . Acting upon instructions from ICA, he left his university post in the West for Washington D. C. for a few days' processing. Meanwhile, his family proceeded to a West Coast city preparatory to leaving for the Far East. Upon arriving in Washington, he learned his assignment was being changed and would be decided momentarily. He called his wife and told her to keep the family in a West Coast hotel until he learned of his new post and received travel authorizations. She spent 6 weeks in the hotel until papers were cleared sending him and his family to a post in the Middle East. No one met them upon arrival. One child was seriously ill. No housing had been arranged; and it being Sunday, he was unable to reach the USOM. After checking into an inadequate hotel, he reached an embassy official by telephone, and the official had him and his family move into the ambassador's guest house. After putting his son into a hospital the following day, he reported to the USOM, was reprimanded for not reporting more promptly, and ordered to move his family from the guest house immediately. At his first staff meeting, he heard the division chief threaten the staff with reprisals and low ratings if they did not conform to the chief's way of doing things. From that point on, AE describes his relations with his superiors as "strained, like two cats standing and looking at each other with bushy tails. " He got along well with his peers, was pleased with the way his work turned out, but questions the ability and integrity of the administrators. As with AE, AJ went to a country different from the one for which he was recruited and had accepted appointment. He originally had accepted a position in the Middle East, then in Southeast Asia, then in Latin America. After he resigned his university position, expecting to go to Latin America, ICA then advised that "a mistake has been made, but come to Washington anyway, we‘ll put you on the payroll and work something out. " .. _ 129 When ICA selected another Latin American assignment for him, he went to the "country desk" for briefing. The person in charge did not know anything about either the country or the program, could not find the briefing file on the country and gave him the file of another country with the advice, "Read this, there's not much difference between the countries. " Abroad, his relations with superiors and program support people were poor: "The chief of the party was concerned with running a happy ship; the program officer was a bit of a jerk, and you had to get your way without him knowing it, and the bookkeeping of the accounting people kept getting in your way. " He found considerable variation within the staff; he worked selectively among his peers, choosing those who “were known for getting things done. ” He had a staff of five subordinates who changed over time; he rated two as excellent, one as better than average, and four "the less you had to do with them the better. " After 15 months, he resigned. These cases support the notion that some frustrations and poor relationships with Americans arise from experiences with administrative and support personnel. In his study of overseas employees of the United States government, Torre, in assessing relationship difficulties within the occupational forces, notes that consistently 5 to 10 percent of the personnel who were highly authoritarian contributed well over 95 percent of the difficulties: "Throughout the diplomatic, technical assistance and military missions, one position seemed to be almost always filled by a person with excessive authoritarian qualities. This is the position of administrative officer. This is a very important and sometimes thankless job which requires someone to handle the multitude of personal complaints and adjustments arising from the difficulties of every day living. Although the job should be filled by someone of maturity with a sensitivity for interpersonal relationships, it is much more frequently filled by someone who enjoys the position of authority and control. Unfortunately, these men know the rules and regulations and can handle the paper work so are usually kept in the job. ” 1 1MottramTorre, "Performance and Adjustment of American Person~= nel in Overseas Missions, "' in Americans at Work Abroad (Syracuse: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs,» Syracuse University, March 1957). M I30 Relation of Frequency to Quality of Interaction. .Data in Tables l3 and 14 mildly support Homansl thesis that people who interact fre= quently with each other tend to perceive their relationships more favorably than do those who interact less frequently. Table 13. Quality of relationships with superiors as related to frequency of interaction. Frequency of Interaction Less than Quality Daily Weekly weekly Total Good to excellent 10 3 7 20 Poor to fair 0 7 3 IO Varied with persons 1 l 2 4 Total 11 ll 12 34 Table 14. Quality of relationships with peers as related to frequency of interaction. Frequency of Interaction Less than Quality Daily Weekly weekly Total Good to excellent 11 2 8 21 Poor to fair 3 l l 5 Varied with persons 0 2 6 8 Total 14 5 15 34 1Homans, p. 186. Also, see T. M. Newcomb,- "The Prediction of Interpersonal Attraction, " American Psychologist (Vol.. II, 1956), pp. 575-86. Quality of relationships correlates positively with frequency Of interaction when we compare daily with weekly frequencies. This does not hold, however, in the more ambiguous category of "less than weekly. " We find some explanation in this by noting the greater tendency of respondents to use the category, "varied with persons,- " in the case of peers. This suggests the greater freedom men had to choose inter- action partners among peers than they did with superiors. Here the range is limited and fixed, and good relationships are personally im- portant. .Factors Affecting Frequency of Interaction. When he is isolated from them, the American naturally tends to interact less with his fellow Americans in the USOM. This isolation can be physical, such-as where he is Officed or whether he is in the national capitol or out in country. He also can be "psychologically” isolated by other factors. . In the follow— ing paragraphs, we explore these two forms of isolation. Physical Isolation. Table 15 indicates that while those Officed in the American organization were evenly split on frequency of interaction with American superiors, those Officed elsewhere interacted less fre- quently than those housed with the Americans. Table 15. Frequency of interaction withsuperiors as related to where Officed. Frequency of Interaction Where Officed Daily Other Total American organization 9 9 18 Host organization 2 7 9 Combinations and other 0 i 7 7 Total 11 23 34 132 There was no relation, however, between the quality of inter— action with either superiors or peers and location, excepting for a tendency for those in the American organization to perceive slightly higher quality relations. Four men, based outside the capitol, interacted with superiors (and for three of them also with peers) at a frequency ranging from two or three times a month, to monthly, to once every one or two months. "Psychological"Isolation. Other factors tending to isolate techniw cians from fellow Americans and hence to reduce the frequency of interaction include prior experience in the country under different auspices, facility in the foreign language, and being a technician with a Specialty unique to the mission: Two men (FF and YY); had each worked in their respective countries under a contract arrangement, i. e. , they were em= ployees of an institution or organization having a contract with ICA. Their functions were transferred to the USOM, and they became "direct hire" employees. They report almost identical- patterns of behavior and perceptions with respect to their relationships with mission personnel. Neither feel they were either a part of or incorporated in the American organization, were not dependent upon it, and felt socially separate from it. Under the contract operations they had developed methods of working and direct relationships with nationals. In some cases they had been in the countries appreciably longer than most mission personnel. They perceived that either the mission administrators were not interested in what they were doing or did not agree with and tried to change their ways of operating. As a consequence, they avoided mission personnel. When a man is fluent in the language of the country in which he works, he becomes more independent of the American organization and spends more time with the nationals. Four of the five persons fluent in the local language at the start of their tours indicate they did not feel. a part of their American work groups, did not depend upon it, or both. 133 They identified with the USOM more than the work group, as they de— pended upon it for administrative support and services. The fifth person spent his first year doing general administrative chores through— out the mission. : Isolation from the mission and work group also identifies with the uniqueness of the specialty in the mission. For instance, the one veterinarian, the one fishery specialist, or the one transportation adviser in a country are not only "lone wolves” in their specialties but are "strangers" within any established work group such as agriculture, public health, or education where they are assigned for administrative purposes. Other Factors Affecting Quality of Interaction. Among the five variables investigated, educational level, educational orientation, age, grade, and prior employment in the United States, only prior employ— ment seems to associate with the quality of interaction. Table 16 reports the differential influence of prior employment before going abroad on quality and frequency of interaction. Those who had worked for the government previously are most likely to have good relationships with superiors and those employed by profit—making M organization least likely. In comparison with the fOrmer- government employees, those who worked previously for non-profit institutions interact less frequently with superiors. Perception of American Organization On the premise that men will assess organizational situations in which they find themselves partly as a function of past experience in organizations, we asked them to compare the American organization abroad with bureaucracies with which they were already familiar. Their comparisons,as summarized in Table 17, indicate nearly twice as many unfavorable comments as those "about the same" or “better, " 134 Table 16. , Prior employment in United-States as related to quality and frequency of interaction with superiors. Quality of Relationships Frequency Prior Good to Poor to Employment Excellent Fair Varied Daily Other Total U. S. Government 8 2 l 5 6 11 Non-Profit Institution 9 4 3 4 12 16 Profit-Making Organization 3 3 0 2 4 6 Student 0 l 0 I 0 1 Total 20 10 4 12 22 34 Table 17. Ways Americans perceive American organization abroad differed from bureaucracies with which they were familiar. Number of Perceived Differences Comments Worse: 25 More authoritarian and autocratic More red tape and controls Lower quality, less competent people Less clarity in goals and means Less personal interest and teamwork About the same 10 Better: 3 More personal interest and teamwork No comment I 135 Critical comments reveal dissatisfaction with the system more than with specific personnel: , "I came from a government position in the states. We had definite jobs, definite goals, definite ways of doing things, such as timetables . . . and these were lacking in the USOM. "It was held together by more paper than any organization ever before experienced; I only met the mission director twice. " On the other hand, a few redefine the situation and recognize necessary differences between the technical assistance post abroad and a stateside organization: "It was different in the sense that it was dealing with a wide variety of subjects of diverse nature; it differed in scope of activities of concern as compared with the U. S. Office of Edu= cation. Also, it differed in that it had a small number of specialists, most of whom were in an advisory capacity. It was a management consulting organization in a way rather than an operational type activity. ” Respondents also assess the extent they felt a part of the mission and work group, their degree of incorporation within these, and the extent they depended upon each (see Table 18). Table 18. How Americans assess identification with and dependence upon American organization abroad and specific work group. Felt part of Incorporated within Dependent upon Assessment USOM Work Group USOM Work Group USOM Work Group High 23 23 22 19 ll 16 Low 10 6 11 10 22 13 No reply 1 5 1 5 1 5 Total 34 34 34 34 34 34 136 As with frequency and quality of interaction with superiors and peers, instances of low identification are primarily associated with location of office, prior experience in the country, fluency in the local language, or uniqueness of speciality. These factors are particularly evident in the data on the comparative dependency upon the mission and the work group. The thirteen with low work group dependency in- clude three based outside the capitol, two with regional rather than country posts, two with unique specialities, two with prior contract experience in the country, and two with primarily administrative work in which they functioned across all groups. Many of these same factors are associated, with some exceptions, with the kind of spirit which the technicians perceive characterized various operational relationships among the mission personnel (see Table 19). Table 19. Spirit Americans perceive as characterizing relations among mission personnel. Quality of Relationships Relationships Good Poor No Reply, Total Other Between central office and field 6 14 14 34 Between administrative and technical person— nel 12 19 3 34 Among work groups 19 5 10 34 Data in Table 19 portray the usual tensions between central and field staffs and between administrators and technicians, as well as a greater tolerance and appreciation among peers. Twelve say there was no competition among individuals or groups within the mission, while eleven state there was competition for resources, funds, facili— ties and personnel, and another eleven report stresses arising from jurisdiction in cooperative projects, credit for accomplishments and vying for administrative favors. - Americans within theLatin American servicios compete for the host nationals who speak English and are familiar with servicio operations. These data also make clear that men are more aware of the relationships between administrative and technical personnel than they are of those between the central office and the field. Personal Relationships with Americans This study helps illuminate the way people respond differentially to the restricted range of interactions possible to them in most countries. Those most available for professional antisocial.interaction are USOM colleagues and members of the immediate family. With USOM Colleagues. Abroad, the fellow countrymen with whom the American mixes socially are, in large measure, the same ones with whom he interacts professionally. - Only six persons say they felt socially separate from the organization and/or work group all or part of the time. Some derive security and support from this situation: "You became a member of a closer knit group. I leaned on other people, particularly when my wife was ill. " In comparison with their United States experiences, twenty say their work life and their private life were inter-related to a greater degree abroad. Nine others say “about the same. ” Some like the. greater. - . . intimacy; some do not: "One of the things I didn't like about being overseas was you just had to live too closely with the people with whom you were working. Everyone knew what was cooking in eachother's pot. I would like to be somewhat freer in choosing friends and acquaintances. " With Wife and Family. Practically all of the Americans who were accompanied by the wife andfamily found increasedlopportunity to inter- act with them. Most welcome this interaction as extremely important and desirable. Ten technicians say they discussed their work and problems with their wives more than they did when in the United States; another twenty discussed these matters with their wives to about the same extent. The Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry reports that the man who goes abroad with his family finds that he is . . . ' "thrown into a more intense relationship with them than at home. For some Americans, this greater proximity results in greater intimacy and understanding. . . . For others, basic difficulties within a family become accentuated in the closer living with fewer opportunities for diverse activities or substi- tute outlets . . . some wives, particularly those who may have given up jobs or careers in order to accompany the family, 1 experience a greater change of living habits than their husbands. “1 The experiences of one man who divorced his "career woman" wife while abroad bears out this observation. His comments underscored the wife's importance as expressed by most of the men: "A wife would have been the other half of me in If there's anything a man needs abroad, it's his wife. The relations with my wife, instead of getting better, got worse. When she refused to divorce me, I divorced her. ” Another man discussed with his wife many things he could not dis- cuss with other people. He obtained her reactions to persons and how one might get to know other persons better. He thinks the experience brought him and his wife much closer together. Many also believe they IGAP Report No. 41, pp. 493-94. 139 became much closer to and enjoyed their families more while abroad. As the overseas experience helps some people discover them- selves, one man learned more about his wife: "I feel that my wife adapted to the whole situation less well than I did; I was somewhat disappointed in the adaptation she made. I found out some things about her that I did not know before-—some of her reactions to people, and her concern for status. She took the housing business much more seriously than I did. Possibly, in the total success of this mission, it could have been the same if my wife had not been there . . . I don't feel she was an integral part of it . . . but I am also aware that another [different] wife might have been detrimental. " Three—fourths mention how important their wives were in manag- ing work—related social responsibilities. Ten wives also helped by teaching nationals English and/or briefing them on American customs. Several helped prepare participants (particularly female) to come to the United States. There is a general notion that men working abroad have more free time, that is time neither pre—empted by the job or by outside responsi- bilities, such as civic or fraternal affairs. Fourteen men say they had more time abroad in comparison with their United States experiences. Thirteen report about the same amount of time; seven say ”less time. " Those having free time spent it sightseeing with their families, on trips to other countries, and in local sports and recreation. Several greatly increased their reading. Typically, they would start by reading professional books and material about the country, but before long would turn to lighter material such as short stories, novels, histories, and the like. Outside of taking advantage of the new opportunities for travel and sightseeing, people spent their free time doing about what they would at home. An Air Force reserve officer occupied many weekends in training flights over surrounding Latin America countries and once 140 flew a jet to New York City for a weekend. A single man, who lived inia hotel, in his words, concentrated on "Drinking and carousing . . . there was nothing else to do. " Another man, and one of the few who brought religious activities into the conversation, says: "I read; I saw people more frequently at parties than in the states; I spent more time in religious activities than I ever did before; I went to the synagogue a hell of a lot more; I attended lectures, and read the Bible a lot more than back in the states. " Summary 1. Although the American organization is the major source of frustration for most Americans, this does not disrupt relationships with superiors and peers. They differentiate between the bureaucracy and its members, with the possible exception of certain administrative support persons whom they criticize. 2. Quality of relationships with American superiors and peers generally correlates with frequency of interaction. This is principally a function of office location or of not being ”isolated" by prior host country contacts, knowledge of the local language, or uniqueness of specialty. Men with prior experience in the United States government before going abroad are more likely to report good to excellent relations with other Americans. The variables of age, grade, educational level, and educational orientation do not associate with quality of interaction. 3. In comparing the American organization abroad with bureaucraa cies with which they are already familiar, the men make twice as many unfavorable comments as those “about the same" or more favorable. . 4. Two—thirds say they found their private life and work life abroad inter=related to a greater degree than in their stateside experi= ence; yet, they had more time to spend with their families. Onenthird discussed work problems with their wives to a greater extent than at 141 home; three—fourths mention how important their wives were in manage- ing the social responsibilities associated with their work. Free time pursuits tend to follow already established patterns. CHAPTER VI LEARNING IN CROSS—CULTURAL WORK ROLES In this chapter we focus on "the learning process, ” broadly defined, the chief'concern being the patterns and processes associated with acquiring new information, modifying attitudes, and developing skills necessary in new cross=cultural roles. We consider the prob= lems of studying learning, what the Americans believe important to learn, what they perceive as productive learning experiences, and the areas of ease and difficulty in learning. In addition, we explore their attitudes toward themselves as learners, and their perceptions of how host nationals learned from them. Problems of Studying Learning With the assumption that a man's education and previous experi» ence are intimately associated with what and how he learns in new situations, the following [analysis is concerned with three independent variables——previous overseasexperience, educationallevel, andsfiu- cational orientation. The analysis gains perspective from responses to such probes—-"How did you learn that?" ”How did you come to find this out?"--following answers to other questions. Although we speak of "learning” and “learning process, ” we might consider the relevant issues in the broader concept of "socialization. “ At least two observations provoke this comment: The inadequacies in theory and research specific to adult learning, and the inadequacies in the reports of the respondents. 142 Inadequacies in Theory and Research. No single learning theory provides a basis for analysis of the adult learner in a cross-cultural situation. Learning theories are not theories of total behavior; more— L/ over, all learning theories are not concerned with the same phenomena.1 Research on adult learning is both meager and primarily concerned with formal or programmed learning, i. e. , such as classroom—oriented programs in adult education, or on—the-job training experiences in business and industry. 2 Inadequacies in Respondents‘ Reports. Several problems confront the investigator who seeks to gain insight on the adult learning process from the reports of the learners. As Hall and others observe, certain areas of behavior normally fall outside the threshold of awareness. These pose methodological problems. A man learns his behavior in a culture and what he learns is part of the culture even though he may not be aware of this: ”The job of achieving understanding and insight into mental processes of others is much more difficult and the situation more serious than most of us care to admit. . . . Culture hides much more than it reveals, and strangely enough what it hideS, it hides L most effectively from its own participants. "3 1Hilgard presents a concise perspective on the similarities and differences and chief areas of focus of a number of theories, and com- ments, "For one thing, there is a great deal of empirical knowledge / about learning which is unrelated to the differences in the major points of View. " Ernest R. Hilgard, Theories of Learnirg (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, Inc., 1956), pp. 457-90. 2See, for example: Edmund deS. Brunner, it a_l., An Overview of Adult Education Research (Chicago: Adult EducatiOn Association, 1959) Cyril O. Houle, The Inquiring Mind (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961); J. R. Kidd, I-low Adults Learn (New York: Association Press, 1959); Malcolm S. Knowles, ed. , Handbook of Adult Education in the United States (Chicago; Adult Education Association, 1960); Coolie Verner, and John S. Newberry, Jr., "The Nature of Adult Participation, ” Adult Education, VIII (Summer, 1958), pp. 208-22. 1 3Hall, pp. 52—53. 144 Just as it is difficult to recall or relate the processes by and through which One comes to know or understand, one may equally be unaware of certain facets of his own behavior and when, and under what circumstances, the behavior changes. A psychologist, Mowrer, offers an explanation for such difficulties. This supplements the observations of the anthropologist: "Everyone has sensations; everyone, on the basis of immediate experience, knows what tastes, odors, colors, and sounds are like. But it seems that no one ever has a ‘sensation‘ of learning. . . . Everyone knows a good deal about what he has to do to learn this or that, and we all have rough ways of testing ourselves for learning. But never, apparently, do we have any awareness of the 'wheels going round‘ as we learn. . . "In the evaluation of living organisms, there was presum— I ably no premium on their being directly conscious of the learning process. . . . If learning is accompanied by no distinctive sensation or state of consciousness, then it is not open to investi- gation by means of introspection. "1 Within these limitations, however, an analysis of the experiences of these thirty=four men leads to some insight on how they learned as well as to what was learned and when. What Was Important to Learn At the mid—point of each interview we reminded each respondent that one purpose of the study was to gain insight on the learning ex- periences of Americans who go abroad in technical assistance. We asked them what they had felt was most important for them to learn in order to carry out their work. Following this, we asked them to describe what for them were the most productive ways (sources, pro- cesses, activities) to learn. 1Hobart O. Mowrer, Learning Theory and Behavior (New York: John Wiley 8: Sons, Inc., 1960), pp. I3-l4. These questions were not easy for most. Some rambled and said little; some failed to report on what they had done or had considered important but, instead, projected into what somebody going abroad "ought to know”; most were fairly laconic. We classified the open-end responses into the categories shown in Table 2.0. Table 20. Prior overseas experience and what Americans consider important to learn. Overseas Experience Important to Learn Yes No Total People—related factors: 3 3 6 Customs, culture, history, re— lationships with people, personal behavior, language, arrangements for personal living Profession-related factor s: l 7 8 Professional situation, adminis- trative procedures and policies, organization and decision-making Both people and professional factors: 8 12 20 Total 12 22 34 Mean number of items mentioned 3. 16 2. 09 Those with overseas experience mention, on the average, 3. 16 items as compared with the 2. 09 items of those without such experience. The experienced are more apt to cite people factors, while those lack- ing prior service abroad are more likely to be concerned with the professional aspects of the situation and the administrative procedures of the USOM and the host government. 146 Data in Table 21 indicate that while educational level and orien— tation influence the number of items mentioned as being important to learn, neither seem to affect significantly the comparative importance of items. The higher-educated and the non-technically oriented mention more items. As education increases, there is a tendency to mention the same items stressed by the overseas-experienced population, i. e. , customs, relationships with people, and organization and decision- making. Similarly, the non-technically oriented emphasize these items more frequently than do those technically oriented. Table 21. What Americans considered important to learn as related to educational level and orientation. Educational Level Educational Orientation lrnportant No Bachelor Advanced Non- to Learn Degree Degree Degree Technical Technical Total People-=related factors 1 l 4 4 2 6 Professions-re— lated factors 0 4 4 5 3 8 Both factors 2 4 l4 8 12 20 Total 3 9 22 l7 17 34 Mean number of items mentioned 2. 03 2. 33 2. 67 2+ 3+ These findings are consistent with the idea that technical competence is a necessary but not sufficient COndition for satisfactory performance abroad. Those with previous experience recognize this in their emphaSis on people items; one would expect to find the non=technically oriented, 147 and perhaps the more highly educated, to be more people—conscious. The data reveal these trends. (Other persons returning from abroad frequently say that many of their more embarrassing moments abroad were associated with inability to answer questions about or carry on discussions relating to domestic or foreign policies of the United States. There was no ques— tion directed at this area, and none of the respondents volunteered such information. Several explanations are possible: They suppressed such experiences; they had none; they had forgotten them, or they did not see this as relevant to the interview about work.) Interaction of these three independent variables leads to a wide range of responses to the overseas experience. The weight of previous experience proved a handicap for this veteran of four previous tours and illustrates the phenomenon of differentiated culture error1 men~= tioned earlier: "I have been a better learner than I was during my last tour. I was reaching a point where I probably wasn’t giving it the old college try. I probably was not trying as much as in earlier assignments, and probably had too much pre-formed opinions. When two or three points seemed to fit a pattern, I probably was too ready to believe that this was something I had seen before. I had a more open mind on earlier tours. " On the other hand, some overseas-experienced persons, such as this administrator, began to grasp the more subtle dimensions: "I'm still trying to learn; I think I'm a fairly good learner-— three college degrees, and have studied six or seven languages. Much of the work abroad is a matter of unlearning or recalling how something was handled 15 years ago in the states. " Those without the overseas experience also differ in their emphasis On What they see as important to learn or study. Some ignore the tech- nology and the problems, while others are challenged by them as these 1Montgomery, p. 4. 148 two men comment, the first an accountant, the second a sanitary engi— neer: "I had to learn to be very tolerant; you can‘t learn anything technical from them. I accepted the overseas assignment primarily as an opportunity to gain new experience. " "I was eager and wanted to participate. I saw it as an ideal learning situation for a junior engineer because the conditions were not available in the United States. ” These and other comments hint that one of the factors helping determine what is important to learn is the original motive for accept-= ing the position. Those who accept the professional challenge of the assignment are most interested in learning what will help achieve the objective; those with other motives are apt to seek learning which they perceive will lead to fulfillment of these expectations. Productive Ways of Learning Table 22 reports free response answers to the question,- "What, for you, were the most productive ways of learning what you considered important to learn? ” Non—technically oriented persons mention three ways to the two of those technically oriented. The non-technically oriented read more, ask more questions, and carry out more formal and informal observations and surveys. The two groups are about equal in the extent they say they found on-the—job activities and personal relationships productive. While educational level does not seem to influence perception of productive ways to learn, those with prior overseas experience mention an average of 3. 75 ways to the 2. 59 of those who had not been abroad. The differential influence of educational orientation and prior overseas experience, plus lack of influence of educational level, suggest that Americanshave learned to learn in rather characteristic ways and 149 Table 22. Educational orientation and what Americans find as most productive ways to learn. Productive Ways to Learn Educational Orientation Technical Non—Technical (N: 17) (N: 17) Reading 5 l3 Asking questions 10 17 Observations; formal surveys 7 l3 On—the-job activity 9 12 Training; orientation programs 2 0 Through friends, personal relationships 6 7 Mean number of mentions 2 29 3 05 that these pervade most formal and informal educational experiences at home and abroad. Further, these ways of learning do not seem to ' change materially with overseas experience; rather, the experience prompts the individual to employ more of the ways of learning he already knows. Hall notes that ”people reared in different cultures learn to learn differently. . . . Some cultures, like the American, stress doing as a principle of learning, while others have very little of the pragmatic. " Another anthropologist terms learning how to learn as "deutero- learning. "2 He considers such learning of utmost importance when the individual is faced with a new, as yet undefined situation; the person lHall, p. 53. 2Gregory Bateson, "Social Planning and the Concept of 'Deutero- Learning, "' from Science, Philosophy and Religion, Second Symposium. (New York: Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, 1942), pp. 81~97. Reprinted in Theodore Newcomb and Eugene L. Hartley, eds. , Readings in Social Psychology (New York: Henry Holt and Co. , I947), pp. 121-128. 150 draws upon both the simple experience of the past and how he has learned to learn. - Men did not always arrive by themselves at what they judge to be productive ways to learn; other people frequently advise them on what they believed to be the most useful approach. When he asked a high official in ICA how he should do his job when he got abroad, AL was told: "Make friends. If you don't do anything else down there, make friends. " After a couple of years, AL came to the conclusion that was probably the best avenue for learning that was important. As he ex— plains it: "I went out of my way to make friends in various walks of life. When people will accept you on a personal basis, you get an insight into their background, their lives, their approaches to problems. This is the only way you are going to realize just what these problems are. Otherwise you stand on the outside. ” AJ, a first-timer abroad, says he had learned little in the orientation program, but believed he had done more background read- ing than most Americans with the result that his questions had more depth: "When you get there you sort of stumble around; you try to find out who is knowledgeable; you get a lot of misinformation; you find it necessary to reclassify your information from time to time. Upon arriving, I was handed the annual reports of the previous 3 years. In the light of this reading, I went out and tried to find out what his really means. Initially, I had to ask questions of Americans since I did not know the language. " AF, who had worked in several other countries for other agencies, describes the learning process in this way: "By osmosis; I had assumed it would be necessary to keep your eyes wide open, and ask countless questions. Over the cocktail hour you would pry and poke trying to find out something 151 about various locals, and how to approach them . . . try to find out who is really running things, as opposed to people named as heads. " When asked to name the things in the world of work about which they were most apt to ask questions of host nationals, twenty-eight refer to the professional situation and/or to relationships involved with the job. To a similar question about what they were most likely to ask of the Americans, twenty—eight name the same factors. Such responses suggest that the men impose a limited range on what they consider the world of work; only three mention topics relating to the people and their customs, culture, and background. Those with prior experience abroad report a greater amount of interaction with nationals of their host country prior to leaving the states. They visit the embassy of the future host country, talk with officials, and obtain data about the country. When possible, they mix socially with nationals of the country, attend embassy functions, and frequent clubs and other places where they are likely to come in contact with nationals or Americans familiar with the country to which they were going. They write to people in the country, asking specific ques— tions, and upon arrival, may visit the United States embassy to get biographical. data about the host nationals. Most of those without prior overseas experience fail to mention these types of information-seeking behaviors. They are more likely to visit the United States State Department and the National Geographic Society; if they talk to anyone from the country, it usually is a returned American. rOnly two respondents speak favorably of the ICA orientation pro- gram, and both cite inadequacies, such as failure to tell about the cool attitudes of the colonials still in the government. Most mentions of orientation programs are critical. For some, their antagonism with with the orientation. Conversely, most of the individuals who had not had opportunity to attend an orientation program feel they would have 152 the American organization (the ICA) began with their dissatisfactions benefited by such an experience. I Men who had attended orientation programs typically complain about failure to separate professional and clerical personnel, lack of first-hand country knowledge among the Washington training staff, over-emphasis on government forms, and the frequently expressed comment, "what they told you had no meaning until you got to the country. " This comment touches the range of criticisms: ”You can divide the sheep from the goats; I think I should know entirely different things than a secretary. I should not be largely briefed by the same people and in the same manner. Some effort should be made before I am briefed to ascertain what I already know. It is ridiculous to waste my time with things that are of no concern to me nor from which I can learn anything. I feel that much more individual treatment should be greatly stressed; the 'graft nature' of southeast officialdom should have been brought out; the sexual mores should have been gone into; political and economical situation should have been elucidated; in other words, had I not done considerable home work-- and I didn't do enough--I would have been poorly prepared. " Their reactions to these formal learning experiences are similar to their responses to the formal organization. Their expectations of rationality and quality are never quite fulfilled. In the relatively low value they place on reading and orientation program as routes to learning, these Americans also tend to reject formal learning experiences in favor of direct, on-the-job, day-to-day interaction. Of the half of the men who include reading among their learning activities, just one lists this as the sole means. Most who mention reading also cite two or three other activities as well. They are about equally divided as to whether they read about the country and the people or about technical and professional material associated with their prospective assignment. They tend to read more as a pre- departure activity than after arrival in the country. Some read preliminary to more direct, validating experiences, as this doctor: "The national health service had a nice little booklet describing everything it did; but if you went out and saw the operation in the field, you got a different picture. You realize the plan is good, but the resources to keep it up are missing. You would look at tables, bibliographies, books, and pamphlets, and then talk to the doctors. " Others read as their usual approach to beginning any professional work, as this scientist: "I did a lot of background reading--even went to New York when I couldn't get certain books from the university library. I would not embark on any task, as a scientist, without reading first. As a result of my reading, I was aware of some things about the fiSh and waters which were not known in the mission. " One man subscribed to a Spanish—language paper before going and continued to read it while in the country. Of the seven men who worked in Muslim countries, one obtained an English translation of the Koran early in his tour and found it helped him understand the people and their customs. This analysis of what men perceive as productive ways to learn illustrates the learning and behavior triad which Hall describes as \/ formal, informal, and technical.1 Formal behavior is that which every- one knows and takes for granted. Informal behavior, while relating to the formal, is frequently unconscious (out—of—awareness) and of a style unique to the individual or situation. Technical behavior is fully con- scious and tends to be logical, systematic, and explicit. In developing his thesis, Hall considers the learning, awareness, and affect aspects of each of the three systems, which he recapitulates as follows: 1Hall, p. 87. 154 "The formal is a two-way process. The learner tries, makes a mistake, is corrected. . . . Formal learning tends to be suffused with emotion. Informal learning is largely a matter of the learner picking others as models. Sometimes this is done deliberately, but most commonly it occurs outwof-awareness. In most cases the model does not take part in this process except as an object of imitation. Technical learning moves in the other direction. The knowledge rests with the teacher. His skill is a function of his knowledge and his analytic ability. If his analysis is sufficiently clear and thorough, he doesn't even have to be there. He can write it down or put it on a record. In real life one finds a little of all three in almost any learning situation. One type, however, will always dominate. "1 Most of the men were concerned about the way they used English in speaking to nationals, few took gestural systems into account, and practically all reflected American middle class styles of interpersonal behavior. These relate to Hall's triad in this way: Language (technical); gestures (informal), and interpersonal style (formal). We can also contrast the relatively low value in which these men regard reading as preparation for overseas work with the role which reading seems to play in their professional life in the United States. Eighteen of the twenty who say it was necessary to bring themselves up-to-date in their professional field upon returning from abroad list reading as the principal means of doing this. This supports the thesis that they had ”learned how to learn" inasmuch as their academic prep- aration for their professions had undoubtedly involved a great deal of reading. In this sense, in the context of their stateside professions what once was a technical level activity has become formal, i. e. , part of the profe s sional ritual. z lHall, pp. 94-95. 2Hall notes that any change is a complex circular process, pro- ceeding from formal to informal to technical to new formal. Hall, p. 116. 155 What Was Easy and Difficult to Learn As with the question of what they consider important to learn, prior overseas experience seems to account for some differences in what the Americans perceive as being easy and hard for them to learn. Data in Table 23 indicate that those with prior experience are more apt to identify areas of difficulty and ease and see learning about the people as being more difficult and about the professional situation less difficult than those without this experience. Earlier, these experi- enced persons said that learning about people is more important than about the professional situation. Educational level and orientation does not seem to be associated with perceptions of difficulty and ease. Table 23. Overseas experience and what Americans consider difficult and easy to learn. Difficult Easy Previous No Prev. Previous No Prev. Items of Learning Exp. Exp. Exp. Exp. Everything 0% 7.9% 8% 14% Nothing 25 5 33 9 People and their customs 33 9 25 41 Professional situation 17 50 l7 18 Language 8 9 8 9 Other 17 18 8 5 Views of Self as a Learner In responses to the question, "How do you feel about yourself as a learner? " the men present views which help understand how they perceive their learning experiences. Several note the role of motivation and interest in what a man learns and how he feels: 156 "If I have motivation to learn, I can learn quickly and easily; if I do not have motivation, I just don't. ” "If I am interested in something, it no longer becomes a chore; if not interested, I just do not attempt it. " "I'm a quick- study; I can and do become highly interested in a given topic and go out and devour anything available on it. I think I learn fairly fast. " Two-thirds hold extremely favorable views of themselves as learners; eight others have mixed or "average" reactions to themselves as illustrated by the comments about motivation, and three have fairly negative images of themselves as learners. These comments are typical of those with positive views: "I've always been able to absorb information quickly and to learn rapidly; I read a great deal. “ "I like to believe that I learn very rapidly; in fact, I think I have proof of that. " All three with negative images are technically oriented and come out of agricultural or agricultural-related education. Their comments illustrate an unsureness and discomfort in trying to learn in new situ- ations: "I feel I have a lot to learn; some learning is difficult, such as theoretical things. I don't mind studying. “ "I'm slowing down; it takes me a bit longer to grasp things; but they stick with me a long time. I have to study new situ- ations. " "I never felt I was particularly good (as a learner), although I never had any trouble with grades in school. " The data do not provide explanation for the association of agri- cultural educational backgrounds with unfavorable views of oneself as a learner. Such views may originate with the technical orientation of 157 their education, the particular sub-culture from which they came in the United States, or, more likely, the contrast of their professional assignment with their past experience. Men who have spent most bf their professional life working with individual farmers, or, at most, small groups of farmers, probably find the complexities of both American and host national bureaucratic systems extremely difficult to comprehend. Accustomed to dealing directly with people in an educational service role, they lack experience in working within and through a complex system. Their inability to learn rapidly leads them to negative views of themselves as well as dissatisfaction with the system. How Nationals Learned from Americans Whatever insight we gain about how the Americans perceive the nationals learn from them we must infer from responses to other questions. Few men perceive themselves as teachers or express concern about the nationals as "learners. " As Hall points out, "Learning to learn differently is something that has to be faced every day by people who go overseas and try to train local personnel. "1 This suggests that the American needs to be aware of the accepted (preferred) system of learning in the particular society. People may resist unfamiliar learning opportunities and may find such learning extremely difficult. In other words, it may be necessary to teach or advise people in ways which are consistent with how they have learned everything else that is important to them in life. In their replies to the question, "How did you go about giving adu- vice to people?’' these Americans describe a rather uniform pattern 'Haii, p. 53. of indirect, problem-centered approaches. Generally, they emphasize waiting until the nationals raised an issue or question before giving advice and, even then, being both indirect and informal. Few seem to recognize the possibilities of manipulating situations to provoke questions or concerns or to create opportunities to advise. Few seem to be aware or concerned with determining how nationals might prefer to receive advice, and their views reveal their preference for self- initiated, problem-centered learning. Those with previous overseas experience indicate they are more likely to take a positive, aggressive approach to giving advice. They more frequently mention helping the nationals develop alternatives and assess objectives. They also suggest trial approaches and demon- strations, ask questions, and have reference materials translated. A public administration consultant with prior experience in both ICA and military government, includes the following in his repertoire of activities associated with giving advice: "Get to know them as individuals, and get to know the problems of their organization; study the formal and informal organizations; viSit different parts of the organization, getting some grasp of what they were trying to accomplish; try to help them define or refine their objectives and techniques; avoid writing formal, official documents; through discussions, make suggestions, asking if they had tried things out, and if not, why not; let them develop a confidence that you are not there to criticize them or tear them apart. " Those not experienced in work abroad more typically say they waited until they were asked for advice or people came to them with problems. They seem to place higher values on personal, friendship routes to dispensing advice, such as ”over a cup of coffee, " or while doing something else. This approach perhaps represents one extreme of a continuum ranging from highly impersonal to highly personal: 159 "Before discussing any problem, I would initiate a friendly matter. I always kept a bottle of raspberry brandy in the office, and I would frequently invite them out for coffee with me. I would provide examples from past experiences, keeping my remarks as suggestions, not as didactic statements. It was important to make clear that you had a great deal of background. “ Summary and Propositions About Learning Data in this and previous chapters help shape tentative conclu- sions about the way men learn in cross-cultural work assignments. From answers to direct questions, plus responses to related questions, we can develop a set of tentative statements descriptive of the learning process as experienced by the men in this study. Data about learning emerging in this study parallel some of Gibbs1 propositions about adult learning in formal situations although the learn— ing experiences here were primarily informal, unorganized, and cross- cultural. In the paragraphs which follow, we outline a series of propo- sitions about adult learning in cross-cultural work roles which the data V suggest or support. I. The learning process is largely self-initiated, with the learner valuing most that activity which he perceives as originating with himself. This is evidenced in the way the men discount organized training and orientation programs, criticize the ICA personnel who provided individual "country briefings, " and claim they took the initiative in learning from their predecessors and counterparts and in developing close personal relationships with nationals. At least two factors probably account for this. First, the American middle class male desires independence and self—determined 1John R. Gibb, "Learning Theory in Adult Education. " In Malcolm S. Knowles, ed. , Handbook of Adult Education in the United States (Chicago: Adult Education Association, 1960). 160 integration,1 and second, with self—initiation, one is seeking answers to the questions one has; when someone else takes the lead and programs information for you, the information, as you see it, may not be relevant. 2. Learning develops out of problem situations‘in which the learner finds himself. This relates closely to the issue of self-initiation. .Once in a situation, the person tries to reconcile the realities with his expectations. For many of these men, expectations and realities were quite different and led them to seek information and/or to rationalize. They generate questions out of direct experience. Sixteen men identify "going to work on one's own" as the principal means of learning about their jobs. Here the concepts of the job interact with the views of others; they arrive at their own assessment of the organization's prob-= lems and relate themselves to the problems in terms of their own adequacies and inadequacies. 3. The learning process consists of acquiring and testing infor— mation, mostly by direct experience. A few Americans try to prepare themselves for their assignment abroad by reading; those who do so frequently find what they read to be inadequate or inaccurate. Others read to generate questions and focus observations. Consequently, the principal learning experiences they report, in addition to going to work, are asking questions (of both nationals and Americans) and formal and informal observation. Although most are unable to identify or describe any particular patterns in their acquiring-testing behavior, a few indicate explicitly that they checked information back and forth between Americans and nationals, and between reports and field observations. 4. The amount and speed of learning is partially a function of a man' s commitment to his assignment and of his time perspectives. Under the pressure to produce in a "limited" tour of duty, the technician 1Carl Rogers, Counselingand Psychotherapy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. , I942). 161 tries to learn rapidly what seems most relevant to the objective. As a result, he may be unaware of or insensitive to the multiple com- plex of stimuli to which he might attend, and similarly, is probably unaware of the range of the range of his own behavior (or the conse= quences of his behavior) in many circumstances. Thus, although he needs feedback from both nationals and Ameri= cans to facilitate his learning, he may not attend to it, may ignore it, and, in the case of nationals, misinterpret it. Men in this study found judging whether nationals meant "yes" or "no" when they said "yes, " frequently frustrating. 5. Learning related to work is facilitated to the extent that the learner has acquired, by prior experience or orientation, concepts and principles which help him generate questions, focus his analyses, and direct his concerns in areas most critical to job performance. Prior overseas experience made a difference in what the men in this study considered important to learn and in their perceptions of pro= ductive learning experiences. Eleven of the twelve with prior experi= ence include the prior experience as one of the qualifications they brought to the job which was most instrumental in furthering the work. Several say that previous work abroad helps most in determining the questions you need to ask. 6. Some observations in this study illustrate the concepts of Hall relating to formal, informal, and technical modes of learning and behavior. WM» - - “Fr-WI CHAPTER VII POST—TOUR EXPERIENCES AND REACTIONS OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SPECIALISTS The men in this study had at least two things in common=-all were former overseas employees of the ICA and at the time interviewed, all were gainfully employed in the United States, but not with ICA or its successor organization. In this chapter, we consider why they left ICA, their initial reaction upon returning to the states, the nature of their present employment, their disposition to future work abroad, the changes in their viewpoints, and reflections and perspectives on foreign experience. Why They Left ICA Most of the sample (25) say that ICA offered them opportunity to remain with the agency, either abroad or in the United States. They give these four principal reasons for not continuing with ICA: ‘ . Reasons Number ' Not satisfied with job or location offered 8 \ i J Critical of or frustrated by ICA operations 8 7 ‘9’; Education of children, other family considera— tions 5 Prior commitment to a stateside organization 4 The first two factors figured in the decision of this businessman: "I was offered two posts, and didn't like the living situation in either. Meanwhilewthe sixth. director arrived, and I had be- come disgusted. My tremendous ideals were being dissolved; 162 I realized how difficult it was to create a better world. I had approached technical assistance as being the ideal outlet for someone with my interests and background; I was disillusioned about such things as the quality of the people involved, the attitude of high ranking officials, and the abuse of power--so great that I could not believe it. Finally, I threw caution to the wind, and decided I had to live with myself . . . so I resigned, and like a nice little boy came home and kept quiet. " When AH was transferred from a position in central Europe to the Middle East, he became ill and resigned. He disassociates himself from thinking about future work abroad in technical assistance: "I would not want to live in most of the countries where ICA is active. Most of these lack what I consider prerequisites ( to utilization of technical assistance—~a culture and a legal system. " 1 An educational administrator who resigned before his tour ended says: "I began to think about resigning when I felt there was a tremendous expenditure of effort to get something done. The whole foreign aid program, as I saw it, was hopelessly in- efficient, and I didn't want to be associated with it. I saw little hope of changing it by staying with it. " Those with teen-age children abroad are most likely to return home so that the children, particularly if girls, might attend high school in the states. There is less concern about boys attending high school abroad. Health and happiness of the family also becomes a factor for some: ”We wanted to get our child re-oriented in a proper school and we were thinking about having another child. Also, we felt we had had it after three years in . " Some of the unspoken fears that parents abroad have about their teen-age daughters are confirmed in the experiences of one family. While living in a Southeast Asia country, the daughter met and fell in love with a national. Although the parents had reserv- ations, the fact that the young man had been educated principally 164 in the United States removed many of their doubts. They were married, but after less than a year, the daughter, rebelling in her subordinated status as the wife of a Muslim, divorced him and returned to the United States. Initial Reaction Upon Return to United States We started with the hypothesis that people who have been abroad, working in important places with important people, on big projects involving lots of money, and the like, experience a letdown upon their return to work in the states. We asked the men for their experiences in this area. Eighteen say they had no letdown; of these, six state that the experience was quite the reverse. These comments are typical: “To the contrary. I came back with new perspective and better appreciation of America than ever before. I also had a tremendous feeling of the great need for a better understanding in the USA of what is going on in the world, and that something should be done about this. There was no professional letdown, and personally, I came back with the realization that the world is too big for me to see all of it in one lifetime. " "Quite to the contrary. I find that I have much more con-- trol over my program of work now than when I was with ICA. I can call the shots better, and have a much better and more clearly defined picture of where I stand financially; the goals are much better defined, and I have more freedom of action. My present job has more actual scope than technical assistance, but I feel that I am accomplishing much more with foreign veterinarians now than when I was abroad. ” "I feel I would have had a letdown if my assignment in the university had not been changed to one of greater responsibility. In fact, if it had not been changed, I would have been seeking another overseas job in six months. " "I have had no letdown, but that' s because I'm not out on the job market; my present work is very challenging. There was not too much social or personal letdown; our world revolved around our children and books, and we're not used to a tre- mendously exciting social life. Overseas you get so sick and 165 tired of cocktail parties, that coming home was a relief. You miss a bit of the status, and the opportunity to mix with ambassadors. " Of the sixteen who had a letdown, six say it was professional, four personal, and another six both professional and personal. Three comments reflect the combination of professional and personal let- down. In the words of a government worker: "I have felt a letdown; I had greater responsibilities abroad, here I am just a cog in a big machine. I played a more important role abroad in handling finances and in dealing with people. The level of people you dealt with was higher. We were invited to the ambassador's home for a party. “ A soils technician, who spent most of his time living in a tent in the bush country: "A letdown was true for me. Your work is entirely different. Overseas you are pretty much your own boss; you make more dew cisions on what to do and how to do it. Back here, there are clear- cut lines to follow. It's hard to get back into the swing. It takes 6 to 8 months to get back into this 8—hour day. You aren't as im= portant here as you were there; you don't have the prestige. You are more relaxed socially overseas; because you don't have to be on your guard there as much as you do here. You do as you please, and to hell with it, so long as you are not hurting the American government. Here you have certain social behavior patterns; over there, you drink a lot more, you socialize a lot more, you are more yourself there. " A university professor describes the letdown associated with re- turn to a university: "Of course you have a letdown. My salary abroad was con- siderably greater——in fact, $5, 000 greater. The amenities were greater and I led a much more affluent life. But I don't think this is so much what caused the letdown. I have led an affluent life before. The letdown was in having finally made the adjust- ment to the life in , identifying as much as I could with the culture-~and all of a sudden coming back to a different context. The thing that causes the letdown most probably was 'What am I doing here 'P What about these picayune things you have to deal 166 with-~such as who gets the seat on this or that committee? Is it really worth it?‘ You begin to question the rationalization that you made that by going back to the university you can influ— ence more people than by staying in . The letdown is as a member of the organization. The job is not lower in status, although perhaps less exciting. " The comments related to letdown suggest that men are challenged by those jobs which give them opportunity to display individual initiative, knowledge, and skills. When the returned American goes into a position where he has this opportunity, he is less likely to experience letdown than if he returns to a fairly routine position, even though the salary is reasonable. Those who see their present positions as non-permanent are more likely to have experienced a letdown, but the difference here is slight. Those saying their experience was "contrary to letdown, ” are equally divided between the governmental and institutional employ- ment groups. Nature of Present Employment At the time interviewed, sixteen considered their present employ- ment temporary or transitional. -Of these sixteen, twelve came from the group of nineteen1 who went abroad without retaining any formal or informal re—employment status in the United States. Of the fifteen who held re—employment rights, and returned to their former organization, nine are in the same positions held before going abroad; six hold new positions. Two—thirds of the men began work within a month of returning from abroad. For eleven others it was from a month to 10 months before they accepted a regular, full—time position. Only three of these held temporary jobs—~two had two other jobs before the present one, 1Only one of the nineteen was working for the same organization that had employed him previously. 167 and another had three. One man, somewhat accustomed to irregular employment, went 24 month-s without aujob‘. ’Then he took a position to get some background for a future business project. Data in Table 24 compare prior and post-tour employment and show an increase in the number working for the United States govern- ment. This suggests the relative ease of obtaining employment within the government at desired salary levels upon return as compared to locating in an institution or business. Table 24. Employment before and after tour abroad. Employer Before After United States government ll 14 Non-profit institution 16 10 Profitu-making organization 6 10 Student status 1 0 Outside of those who returned to their previous places of employ— ment and had little opportunity for choice, they give these reasons for choosing their present positions: Professional interest and future potential, ten; highest Civil Service grade or salary available, five; and like the city where the job is located, five. How They Compare in Salary. The men compared themselves with other persons in their organization whom they regard as similar to themselves in age, ability and experience, excepting that these others had not had overseas experience. About two-thirds of the returned Americans perceive they have fared better in salary and status than those similar to themselves who did not have such experiences (see Table 25). 168 Table 25. Salary and status as compared with peers without experience abroad. Comparison with peers Salary Status Considerably better than most 8 6 Somewhat better than most 15 15 About the same as most 7 ll Somewhat poorer than most 4 2 Considerably poorer than most 0 0 Total 34 34 In comparing their current salary with that which they received from employment or business immediately prior to going abroad, eighteen say they receive considerably more now, nine others somewhat more, 1 Two receive somewhat less, and one con== and four about the same. siderably less. The annual salary or income ranges from under $5, 000 to more than $25, 000, with a median of $13, 000. Value of Overseas Experience to Emploxers. Respondents differ widely in their assessment of their present employers' evaluation of their overseas experience. Fifteen believe their employers hold positive values, while nineteen others feel that employers do not value the experience, i. e. , as being of low or negative value, or lacking in relevance. Employees of the United States government who took leaves of absence from the "old-line" agricultural, technical, and administrative 1We erred in not getting data on pre-tour salaries. Estimates as to extent the current salary is more than what they used to get is a function of the total salary; for instance, the individual receiving more than $25, 000 had previously been employed at $18,000. He looks upon the $7, 000 increase as being "somewhat more, " while many in the $7, 500 to $12, 000 range see a $2,000 increase as being "considerably more. " 169 agencies are least likely to feel their employers value their experience abroad: "You don't gain a thing by going abroad. . . . You left their organization trying to better yourself and our administrators don’t like to see this happen. " "Most of my associates have never been abroad and are quite prejudiced toward such experience. " On the other hand, those associated with educational or public health work in either governmental or non-profit institutions are more likely to hold positive perceptions: ”The organization values the experience very much. It enhances one's prestige, and reacquaints one with the old days of public health. Now we're too concerned with barking dogs and full garbage pails instead of the great plagues. " I have been placed on ”The experience is valued highly. a committee for development of the university's international programs. " "This is one of the reasons why I am working in the , my experience is valued, and it influences me a great deal in my work on the international dimensions of education. " Those employed by profit-making organizations split evenly (five and five) about how American business and industry perceive individuals who have worked abroad and for the United States govern- ment. One man, now self-employed, explains: ”I think that the conventional company in the U. S. would be most uninterested and probably would not hire a person on the basis of foreign experience; a few companies will realize that someone who has been successful overseas is probably a The opposite is usually true--they are suspicious of good man. you. H On the other hand, of two others employed by private business, SS was hired by private business on the basis of his experience, while TT says his time abroad has only "novelty" value in the consulting firm where he works. Use of Overseas Experience on the Job. Fifteen men perceive that their employers value their overseas experience positively; however, almost twice as many (29) believe that the experience abroad favorably affects the way they do their work, either in approach or con= One—third say they make direct use of their experience in tent. present jobs most of the time while another third use their experience The rest seldom, if ever, find opportunity to do so. occasionally. Half of the men say their employers encourage them to use their over— seas experience. Those in educational pursuits, either in universities or in the United States government, are most positive about the utility of the overseas experience in their present work. A university educational administrator says his experiences are most useful in planning on a comprehensive scale for major programs in education in a different culture: ”You realize direct dividends in terms of better understand— ing of the problems in America, and you become more keenly We aware of our advantages that we haven't yet capitalized on. H also see clues to our shortcomings. A university educator, now working for the government, offers another View: ”What is most useful is an awareness that people are people. and that there is more than one solution to a problem; you can't expect a stimulus—response when you push a button; the mores of the people are more important than the stimulus you provide; you can't render value judgments until you are aware of mores. “ Those who do not utilize their overseas experience on present stateside jobs primarily come from either (a) a prior job which did not have re-employment status, or (b) a permanent status position in Civil Their lack of effective Service with established government agencies. utilization of their experience reflects in large part a lack of continuity in the careers of the men involved. Whatever their motives for going abroad, it seems obvious that they were not directly related to what they would do when they returned. Even though most seem to use their overseas experience on the job, nineteen reveal that they did nothing while abroad to make the Some seem surprised that such experience more useful or valuable. Those who say they did consider this a question would be asked. issue give as examples such things as developing professional and personal contacts, studying practical problems, and collecting materials and slides. When asked what they might do to make the experiences more useful at home (if they went abroad again), six men list each of Learn the language, collect specimens and the following activities: documentary materials systematically, and make specific contacts in a wider sphere with both Americans and nationals. Disposition Toward Future Work Abroad Despite the range of expectations and satisfactions which these men associate with their past overseas tours, all but nine are inter- ested in going abroad on technical assistance assignments in the immediate future. To a similar question about going abroad in the distant future, "it depends, " and four,- "no. ” twenty are interested, eight say, Of those interested, fifteen indicate a willingness to go "this year or next. ” Eleven others name dates ranging from within 2 years to after 15 years. The reasons for picking a particular year parallel those given earlier for returning from abroad-=education of or providing for children, when daughters would be in college or married, and commitment to present employer. In addition to the material reported in Chapter II relating to job freedom vs. security, some men list additional terms which they feel would be important to specify in accepting another assignment abroad. Seventeen say salary would be a consideration. Ten express concern about personal matters such as adequacy of housing, educational facilities, commissary privileges, and time to learn the language. Three say they would not want to go under ICA or United States Govern= ment auspices. Because of continual speculation about what length of tour is most effective, we probed for what these men considered the preferable length. Three would like to spend the rest of their careers abroad. Fourteen say 3 or more years would be best; three believe the 2—year tour most desirable; five are most interested in tours of less than a year; nine make no specification. Changes in Individuals' Viewpoints Most men explicitly identify how the overseas experience had been worth-while to them, and, at the same time, their comments and answers to related probes frequently reveal how their viewpoints had changed. We organize these comments into four areas: World views, personal dividends, professional dividends, and views about the United States and Americans. World Views. Two—thirds of these Americans say they gained a broadened View and greater appreciation of people, countries, and cultures from their tours. In so doing, they now appreciate world problems more and recognize the importance of these problems as well as the need for peoples of the world to work together. . In reporting changes in what they see as world problems, about half of the group view the problems as being more complex, broader, and more im= portant to the United States. At the same time, some became more politically sophisticated and are more tolerant of the activities and attitudes of other nations. In terms of optimism, eighteen come out of the experience more optimistic about the future of the world while twelve are less optimistic. Seven men express some doubts and criticisms about the under-developed areas and criticize _ the United States' policy and approaches to helping them. Comments of the men illustrate the variety of ways their world views changed. APPRECIATION OF PROBLEMS OF UNDERDEVELOPED AREAS "I realize the magnitude of problems that many don't realize exist; I under stand the difficulties that come with different cus- toms and languages; I believe that problems in some areas are insurmountable until education is introduced more widely; you see the problems of operating a democracy with the handicaps of lack of education and multiple languages. ” '.'I didn't believe it could be so bad; the conditions that exist and what there is for a sanitary engineer to do; you can serve them and yourself, too. " "I have changed as to what I feel the basic problems are and what to do about them. I had a naive idea 10 to 12 years ago that what countries lacked most of all was technical guidance and that they were anxious to obtain this. I now do not believe this to be true. I believe that the basic problem in Latin America is not lack of technical know how but is basic insecurity—-political inse— curity, monetary insecurity, which goes back to a lack of faith in their own government. " "I have changed considerably; I have come to see world prob— lems as being far less dependent upon power politics and far more on population levels, economics and culture. The problems are as serious as they were, but the solution lies in different planes and levels. " TECHNIQUES AND POLICIES OF ASSISTANCE "Even though I had previous experience in Japan, I believe I am now more interested in helping underdeveloped countries to help themselves rather than in showing them how=-there is a subtle distinction. " "Before I went overseas, I expected things to move much more quickly; I can begin to see that things are going to change very slowly; you can't do a lot in a hurry. " "I am not sure that we are doing the right thing; the people we are trying to help are happy people, and all we are doing is giving them new sets of problems. I think we are wasting a lot of money. " "I am now convinced thoroughly that there is something to American colonialism that people object to=-—but this is not govern- mental colonialism, but big business colonialism. “ IMPORTANCE OF PROBLEMS TO UNITED STATES "I see world problems as being more important to the United States and the free world than most of us consider; we lack the understanding we should have of the problems of under— developed countries and the way people live there; we don’t know and our students are not taught enough about these problems. I feel our schools are awfully inadequate in international matters. " "I have come to see the vital importance of bringing these countries into full partnership in the company of nations, and of strengthening the free world through developing countries as quickly as possible. - Education is the critical factor in bringing this about. OPTIMISM ABOUT FUTURE OF WORLD "I'm more optimistic. What really counts is working with people on an immediate job level. I think it is much more im- portant that a Frenchman go to Iceland, and a Japanese to Haiti to work with various fields. This is the internationalization that we must come to. It is equally important that Russians go to Cuba; 175 the same kind of positive aspect that my going to had. These relationships are happening all over the world and I see them working. " "I'm optimistic in the sense that I do think our will to live is so strong that we will always try to stay alive. I have seen progress in our terms, and I have seen so many of the so-called underdeveloped countries full of so many enthusiastic, idealistic, strong, powerful, active people that will help bring changes about. I only get discouraged when I see the so-called civilized world, and how we have failed to understand one another and our inability to come to terms. The truly developed countries are the ones that seem to create the major problems. " Overall, they base their feelings of optimism on two principal factors to which they gave about equal weight: (1) The progress that is being made in the underdeveloped areas and the pervasive interest in education, and (2) the belief that people are working together, are basically all brothers under the skin, and that there's hope in people. Those less optimistic about the world's future place the blame on "the attitudes of the rich in a world where there are too many poor people, ” in the conflict between the free and communistic world, the sheer magnitude of some of the problems facing the peoples of the world, and the status of our foreign aid program. Some see China rather than Russia as the threat of the future. Personal Dividends. In several ways, these Americans reflect the impact of the overseas experience on their personal lives and atti- tudes. Thirty hoped to retain, after returning to the United States, changes in the way they had thought, felt, acted, or lived while abroad. Of these,sixteen spoke of changes in tolerance, patience, adaptability, self-awareness, and politeness. Ten hoped to be more cosmopolitan, to have a wide range of eating habits, to appreciate the products of other countries, and to spend more time on cultural interests and foreign affairs. Five listed a desire to maintain closer family ties, more fre- quent display of affection, and a wish to live more sensibly. Two—thirds feel that they have been able to retain some of the changes which they had resolved to retain upon returning; the balance failed to keep them in whole or in part. A marine transportation specialist, for example, had resolved to spend more time on cultural topics, to develop social contacts with people from other cultures and classes, and to emphasize outdoor activities more, but, he says: "This has gone 90 percent down the drain. The demands existing in the American system do not allow the personal time to do these things. I have had no opportunity so far to continue relations with people of other lands. " The sixteen who mention receiving direct dividends from the overseas experience, most frequently refer to growth in maturity, patience, tolerance, and self—understanding. This comment is typical: "It has made a bigger person of me in a sense that I am broader, more tolerant, with a more educated understanding of people other than my own culture. I am a much wiser person. " Some cite dividends of a nature best described as personal con- tentment, satisfaction, and enjoyment, while others tell how the experience brought the family closer together: " The tour abroad helped the family to come to close under— standing and more of a unit. We lived at a slower pace, and shared many experiences. In addition, the family attitudes toward the people of the world changed. " Several Americans gained insight on racial integration and toler- ance. The one Negro in the sample says he became more aware of the racial issue and the injustice of segregation. He feels the segregation issue should receive more publicity rather than less and that we should not try to keep it quiet abroad. Upon returning to the states he moved from Virginia to Washington, D. C. , in order that he would not have to raise his family in a segregated community: 177 "I was bitter about the school situation in Virginia. I couldn't take that or the fact that a man called me 'boy'--that didn't set too well. I had to move because of the low standards of the school and the conditions we'would have to live under. Our associations were pretty limited. ” A government worker expresses the general trend toward toler— ance gained abroad: "I am somewhat more tolerant now of different races. I now feel that people the world over are pretty much the same despite their different colors of skin. I think we are fortunate in this country that by accident of birth we are Americans and not some— thing else. It is not many generations removed from the time when our own ancestors lived in a mud hut; many of these people can learn in a very short time. My outfit is a completely white outfit; I am getting a Negro secretary next week. I think this is one of the things that has changed; I might have been more intolerant. " A technician who worked for several years in the Caribbean where various racial groups intermingle comments: "If I believed in integration beforehand, it probably was superficial; it was stimulating to see how well, for the most part, mixed groups can work together and complement each other. Since returning, I have developed close, rewarding relationships with two or three colored people. ” In the skills, abilities, and talents which at least twenty-six say they discovered in themselves while working abroad, fourteen mention the personal, attitudinal qualities associated with self-confidence, flexibility, adaptability, tolerance, and patience. Twelve cite communi- cation, human relations, and management skills, while three name language aptitude, and two report manual abilities. A business man describes the general case: "You adapt yourself to changing conditions and do things you thought not possible. You grow tremendously when you are on your own. I became more self- sustaining and able to cope with unexpected situations. " An administrator discovers a new perspective: "You discover an ability to learn to know and appreciate the foreign and enjoy it, rather than object to it. It's a principle that can be used and applied in the United States--grant unto others the right to be different without judging them as being better or worse. " An adult educator expresses the sense for administration noted earlier as a by-product of foreign experience: "This going abroad reinforced a belief I had that I could administer multi-faceted programs with a relative degree of ability, and not be overwhelmed. I learned that I could delegate authority very well. I had opportunity to give people their head. This is important now because in my present job I must delegate a considerable amount of work to committees. " As these cases illustrate, the things one discovers about oneself frequently are important in the stateside work. In fact, twenty of the men say these discoveries are important to them after returning, some for such reasons as "I have to deal with people all the time, " and the person who says, "Immensely, I can laugh at myself more; " Professional Dividends. The overseas experience influenced the career and professional viewpoints of most of the men in one or more Their career goals, the career advantages or disadvan- of these ways: tages perceived, perspectives on their professions, and the contribu- tions the host county could make‘to the profession. Changes in-Career Goals. Twenty say the tour changed their career goals and aspirations to some degree, while fourteen report few or no changes. Table 26 lists the career goal changes reported by the twenty. Those who had gone into ICA with the intention of making it a career and then terminated their service because they were disillusioned with ICA or because ICA did not offer them a new‘tour had to recast their future. 179 Table 26. Changes in career goals. Changes Number!" Not to consider a career with‘ICA 7 To get into administrative or management work for university or government 6 More interest in work abroad and in international aspects of own field 5 To concentrate or specialize in a branch of a profession 5 I Some mentioned more than one change. Most members of university staffs before going abroad returned with strong desires to get into administration if they were not already soinvolved. A longs-time civil servant echoes the desires of university men for administrative work: "I now have 27 years of government service and I'm not quite sure what I want to do; I would like to make a change, the work is falling off; it is routine; it is not active enough. My ex- perience better qualifies me for amanagerial job, which is what I like to do. After 3 more years, I can retire and get into management work on the outside. The experienceabroad gave me opportunity to demonstrate that I enjoy this. " Among those more interested in international work in their own field is this veterinarian: ”I have changed from plans to be a practitioner . . . to a desire for a position where I can keep in touch with . . what is taking place in the profession around the world. " Others gained added dimensions in. their own field and see new ossibilities for work and specialization at home, as does this urban anner: 180 "I now want to make more of a contribution in physical I feel strongly that there is planning and housing development. a need for something to be done in housing in-Latin America. I also feel that we have by no means solved ourhousing problems at home. . . . In the South, and on the Indian reservations we have poverty and housing problems as bad as anywhere else in the world. " Advantages andDisadvantages. Earlier we noted that fifteen of the men perceive that the organization where they are now employed value In comparison, nineteen say their professions their overseas experience. value such experiences. . Perceptions of both high organization-and high professional evaluations are associated generally with educators cur- rently working in educational situations. . Conversely, most of those employed by the United States govern- ment tend to experience low utilization of and low evaluations of their overseas experience. Ten of the fourteen government employees per- ceive low organizational values, seven of the fourteen low professional values, and six of these were low in both organization and professional values. Two-thirds of the sample feel the overseas experience advanced Half of these twenty-two also indicate they their professional career. had developed in understanding of pe0ple and issues as well as growing professionally. Statements such as these represent examples of professional growth: ”I got personal contact with field problems; you realize the problems are not so simple as they look in the laboratory. I am more hesitant about making wide claims about things; I'm more cautious. " "It's a matter of viewpoint; I have greater conviction of I confirmed my ability to adjust to new and strange situations. the practicality of many things I had believed intellectually but had never had opportunity to try. “ 181 Where the development involved understandings beyond strictly professional concerns, the comments ranged more widely; As a business man views it: "My life has been enriched; I think I would be of greater value as an association head now; I am more aware of the‘prob— lems abroad as it pertains to the future of business and industry. I was shocked to see we were spending so much of our funds abroad for machinery built in other countries. " A physician says he learned many things: ”I have a broader viewpoint on international problems of all sorts. I learned a lot about the frailities of the North‘American; I learned what is objectionable to people in other countries; and I learned a lot about politics in other countries and more about international politics and trade. Professionally, it was my first experience with a complete socialized medicine program. I learned there were good doctors in other parts of the world, and I became familiar with healthproblems and the nature of medical education.- " A government worker enjoys the contrast: "You have greater latitude for my particular level of work overseas than you have at home; one is more closely supervised here. You gain some confidence when working in a larger scope. " Of two men who reportedadded experience in dealing with people, one views this favorably, and the other with mixed emotions: "The experience quickened-my own concern for doing more effectively in the American way, particularly in the realm of human relations. .1 can see more Clearly that we have done the miraculous in technical fields toward harnessing of natural resources, and that we have only begun to understand ourselves. We have'a state of imbalance in which the emphasis is on tech- nology permitting the social sciences to lag. We must learn to live with one another in a muchmore effective fashion. " "I gained a great deal more experience dealing with'people. I am more tactful than I was before. This may not be an advantage, inasmuch as there is a tendency in our foreign programs to put too much emphasis on tact and you end up pus syfooting. Sometimes a frank approach may be of more value. ” 182 But there is another side. While half say they are not dis- advantaged in‘any way by the overseas experience, the other half feel they lost out by delays in career advancement, by losing touch with developments in their field, because of negative attitudes toward people with overseas experience, or that the nature of their separa- tion from government employment might make it difficult to establish careers along certain lines. This comment is typical of a former government worker who feels disadvantaged: "I feel many people look upon those who have had overseas experience with a great deal of suspicion. If I had wanted to stay in federal service, I would be ahead not to have gone abroad. You can look upon government as a production line with people moving up toward the top; while I was overseas, many of my friends have moved up a notch or so. I would have to move back in at alower level than my friends and former as sociates. " A private businessman presents what he believes the general case for business and industry: . ”The general attitude in-American business is that the man who went overseas did so for negative reasons; also they feel the overseas experience can not be related immediately to their needs and activities. If I were to go out on the general job market, I would be at a disadvantage. They are suspicious of a govern- ment employee in general, and are particularly suspicious of a man who has worked abroad for the government. " A former university man notes several disadvantages: ”The experience has robbed me of some of my idealism; it may have prevented me frOm obtaining a college presidency at an earlier date; while you are overseas it is difficult to locate a job at home, and I have the feeling that my resignation from the government may at a later date prove a deterrent to re-employment. " Two-thirds say that being out of the country made it necessary for them to bring themselves up-to-date in their professional fields; fourteen others, however, held this was not necessary or not relevant, 183 or they were not interested in so doing. :How men's interests and commitment to their positions affect their views on keeping up is re- flected in the comments of twomen, one ‘a government worker, the second an university administrator: "Here I am now confined to the narrow, technical aspects of a job; possibly I got out of date some, and had todo some reading. . But really, I am not interested in bringingmyself up in this technical field; it doesn't interest me any more. - I feel it is not the technician who gets ahead but the administrator, and that is what appeals tome. " "I had considerable homework to do in developments in American education . . . by reading literature and yearbooks. I had opportunity to serve on the research staff of a coordi- nation committee on higher education in the state. This gave me a chance to both review developments and engage in planning. I also served as executive director of the governor's conference on education beyond the high school. " Perspective on-Profession. Work abroad also affects views the men hold of their profession and their organization or institution. . Half altered their views of their profession-—eleven.see it as beingmore important, five are more critical of their profession, three appreciate the contributions other areas of the world make to the profession. A high school teacher observes: "I have morepatience and more understanding of young people, especially those who have come up under unfavorable circumstances andlimited resources. I feel that I am better able to help such students. The overseas experience highlighted the problems of trying to work with limited resources. " The veterinarian who returned from some ten years foreign service to work with a pharmaceutical firm says: "The company was already involved in international com- merce, but it felt the need for some technical guidance in the foreign field to go along with the sales operation. It is aware that experience based on the United States is not always trans— ferable to foreign situations; hence they created the position I occupy.” 184 In his comments, a veteran government accountant identifies some of the reasons returned Americans may react negatively to their organizations: "It's hard to adjust back. My interests now range over a broader scale than the present housekeeping nature of my own organization. I now get appalled at the petty things that we get concerned about, the minutiae that we deal with, and it kind of turns my stomach when I think of the important things that are going on in the world. I can't get excited about things in the organization any more—-I get bored to death. " Criticisms of the professions took on several dimensions. An adult educator says that going abroad has led him not to take education for granted; that tremendous work has to be done experimentally, and that we can not stand on the type of schools systems we have. A public health worker criticizes the leadership in his profession for not playing the role he feels it should take in the United States: "We have polio but don't have guts enough to go out and do something about it; we have dental caries and a dental pro—= fession as bland as toothpaste which makes its money filling cavities. We are not concerned with providing leadership for an adequate medical care program. " Another educator criticizes his own profession on several counts: "The experience has not strengthened my faith in my own profession, because many of the people sent overseas have been recommended by educators who, in a sense, were unloading peOple rather than being honest. Educators overseas may be too concerned with exporting the American product, and they do not have a grasp of areas outside education. “ A young city planner attacks his own profession for its jargon and smugness: "I feel that there has been a pronounced tendency to develop a jargon and make simple things sound complex in order to im— press city councils. There is a sort of smugness that doesn't stand up so well when you work with European trained planners. We have to realize that we don't have all the answers. I became a little soured on my own profession. “ .185 Seven of the returned Americans feel their organizations should become more involved in international work, while four are critical of their organizations. One Office of Education employee says: "I feel that we should be more involved in international education. International education is spread around too much in government; it would be more desirable to concentrate this in the Office of Education. " A young student of public administration now involved in a family business since returning comments: "I used to think previously of American ways as being the best; I am now aware that there are things in which under— developed areas have succeeded beyond us. My position has changed about the need for protective tariffs. " Contributions of Host Country. Despite the general interest most respondents evidence in international affairs, only one—third indicate that the country in which they worked abroad could make any substantial contributions to their profession or their organization. ‘Nine see the host country as providing opportunities for research on problems specific to the area (such as diseases), and for experimentation in the fields where it may be difficult to do so in the‘United States. An edu- cator makes a case for educational experimentation: "In the underdeveloped countries they have the problem of doing in a few years what we took 150 years to do in the‘United States. If they are to do this, short cuts are in order. These countries could be the trial grounds for such methods that we haven't been able to implement in the UnitedStates--such as television networks and programmed learning; " An educational administrator, after two tours in India, outlines some of the contributions that country might make to the United States: "Through history, the cultural heritage of India reflects a profound respect for knowledge and the teacher; I think they can help us realize a precious significance of education and the vital role of teachers in. society and perhaps needle us to recognize 186 to a fuller measure their key role and to bring to bear our economic resources in this direction. Indian scholars, in the humanities, social studies, mathematics and certain technolo- gies, can make direct contributions which we are taking some advantage of in our exchanges. Their leaders in education may help us by coming and studying our schemes, and by raising questions on why we are doing things in this way. “ A physician sees the country in which he worked abroad as a "fertile field in which to study disease with a younger age group" and to demonstrate how social workers can be used in public health. Views About United States and Americans. Although only nine men directly identify items relating to the United States as worth-while dividends from the tour abroad, twenty-seven say that their overseas experiences led them to alter their understandings about or interests in the United States. These twenty-seven are about equally distributed among those who are more appreciative of the United States as a democracy and way of life, those critical of the United States' approaches abroad and the poor behavior and unfavorable image of the United States overseas, and those more discriminating in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the United States and the behavior of Americans at home. Those more appreciative of the United States comment: "I am much more aware of our great strengths, such as our freedom to work; more aware of the importance of develop- ing our human resources, and more appreciative of the material resources and power we have. " "Going abroad has reinforced my conviction that we don't fully appreciate the U.S. A. unless you get outside and look in. ” "I understand better the complexity of international prob- lems and why it is difficult to make a decision on what action should be taken. I am more interested in international affairs and in how a secretary of state operates, and have some ideas of proper and improper channels of diplomacy. " 187 Men critical of the United States abroad include those dissatisfied with our technical assistance programs and personnel as well as others who worry about the images of the United States created by Hollywood films and tourists: "Seeing money wasted was frightening, as well as the ill will it was creating. This business of the American abroad remaining aloof, of operating on our standard of living from post exchanges and commissaries. Our crudeness and our selfishness were discouraging. ” "I am burned up about Hollywood movies and the bad im— pressions they create about America. The tourists don't do so good at representing us abroad--they are not interested and make rude comments. " "I feel we are not very well represented abroad by our ambassadors; they identify with the elite and the rich; the people of South America hate our guts. " Those who come out of the cross=cultural experience with more discriminating evaluations of the United States reflect concerns such as these: "I think I have come to see clearer some of our shortcom— ings and some of our strong points; I was not as aware of our rigidity, lack of adaptability before going as I am now. I was not aware of the advantage which is often manifested at the technician level of a pragmatic approach of things--we have much more of this than Europeans. As a culture or society, we are mobile within, but rigid and lack flexibility when we come to the borders. Rigidity manifests itself when an American comes in contact with other cultures--then our way of doing things becomes, to our way of thinking, the 'right' way. " "I am aware of certain tendencies in the United States that are dangerous and unhealthy. We have long since passed the phase of fighting for living; comfort has been granted a position of unhealthy proportions. " "Although I had worked in slum areas before going abroad, I am now more aware that we in the United States have not re=- solved all of our own problems. " 188 "What was most important was being away from the United States for a long enough period of time so that you kind of forgot a lot of little daily things. I learned what the attitude was toward the United States; you learn more about the problems of the United States there than you do here. I learned to have a deeper feeling about the problems of the United States, as well as to have a great pride in my country. " Part of the returning American's reactions to the United States include his response to the attitudes and activities of the Americans he meets and observes after returning. Of the group, twentynsix report a reaction of some sort. Six say Americans evidence little or no interest in their overseas experiences. Others have mixed reactions. These two university men illustrate the positive view: "I was surprised with the American interest. I left time for discussion when I showed my pictures. They were more interested than I expected. " "I was keenly heartened by the inquiry and eagerness to hear and to know out of my own experiences. This comes partly out of curiosity, but also out of a sincere desire to know about needs and desires, and what America is doing and could do. " These comments note the mixed to negative reaction to the re— turned American: . "First, they have a very superficial interest in you and what you did; they want to hear the gory stories. But they soon lose interest, and this is a bit disappointing. They want to listen to you for about 3 minutes, and then turn back to television. " "All of a sudden I felt that people could really care less. Most of the comments or questions were quickly over with; no one was concerned with what I did- —just happy to have me back. This was a terrific letdown; I had a hell of a time convincing people that I enjoyed the tour. No one congratulated me; no one was concerned that I had contributed to anything. I now have become reluctant to even bring up the subject, or to show slides. " 189 The university administrator who made the above comment later said, "I now understand the feeling a bit better; I realize that other lands and people have no meaning for Americans. " Of twelve men who comment on Americans' knowledge or interest in international topics, six describe them as being “provincial" or "isolationist, " while another four say they have little or no information. A veteran public administrator with the experience of three tours abroad, two with ICA and one in military government, criticizes American behavior: "It seems they are doing a lot of frantic rushing around, and I wonder how much good it is doing. In Washington, at least, there is a tendency to distort things out of perspective—— a short range, short—sighted view, rather than a long range, calmer view. " But a veterinarian, out of the United States for a decade, notes tr ends toward impr ovement: "I found Americans much more interested in international affairs than they were 10 or more years ago when I left the states. People are now more interested in relations with other countries. " Of twelve others who make general comments about America and Americans, four are "happy to be home“ or feel that "Americans are lucky. " Another four criticize materialism and waste both at home and in foreign aid operations. A university professor describes his re— actions: "Some Americans professed to be highly interested in international problems, but this is a mere front. They are more interested in telling you about themselves and their worldly goods. The other group is vitally interested and have time to listen. Among these are a small number who like to find out but have their minds already made up. They listen hoping to hear what will confirm their beliefs. Americans as a group, are not really interested in international problems. They would rather be left by themselves. Far too many are still isolationists. ” 190 The extreme in negative Viewpoint comes from this government worker: "I was amazed when I returned about how sheltered and limited lives Americans live; how everyone was living in a little ghetto of his own, and how little he understood beyond his immedi- ate sphere. It seems that Americans are both selfish and not selfish. The ordinary individual is thinking of his own sphere of life and not about other people. people of underdeveloped countries live. " A businessman describes feelings quite different in most respects: ”It's lovely to be home. The people we know are very active; they are very interested in our experience. They have placed us on a tiny pedestal. Of course, I am bothered by their hopeless ignorance about international affairs. ” Reflections and Perspectives on Foreign Experience In preceding sections of this chapter, we were concerned with the consequences of the overseas tour in terms of the viewpoints and experi— ences associated with the return of these thirty-four men to the United States. Most returned with knowledge, attitudes, and skills somewhat different from those they possessed when they first went abroad. The socialization associated with living abroad affected, in turn, how they perceive and react to the United States, their profession, and their institutions upon return. Just as their United States background struc- tured their perceptions of the host country in which they worked, the experiences in that host country condition how they see the United States upon return.1 1"No man ever looks at the world with pristine eyes. He sees it edited by a definite set of customs and institutions and ways of thinking. Even in his philosophical probings he cannot go behind these stereotypes; his very concepts of true and false will still have reference to his particu- lar traditional customs. " Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (New York: The New American Library, Mentor Book, 1946), p. 18. He never thinks or feels how the 191 We gain some additional perspective on these men by analyzing their responses to issues related to those already raised in this chapter. In so doing, we review (a) the factors or events in the overseas situ-= ation most influential in changing their outlook and views, (b) what they see as the principal contributions of the host country to the United States, (c) the distinctive contributions that Americans such as themselves can make in underdeveloped countries, (d) how they feel they might influ- ence the next generation of Americans, and (e) their international activities and interests in 1961. Most Influential Factors and Events. Americans in this study most frequently identify personal and social contact with individuals of another culture as the events most influential in changing their outlook "It was the dayato-day contacts with foreign nationals, living around the clock with them in a variety of situations. You gained an insight on the culture by virtue of knowing the language. " "By living in the country and being intimately associated with the nationals; and by living away from Americans. " Another six feel they were affected most by exposures to political and physical violence, as well as to extreme nationalistic feelings. Two experienced overthrow of government; another was shot at while trying to move materials off a dock; one saw third country nationals being shot, without trial, for setting fire to buildings; another saw police summarily cut off the hand of a national caught stealing a can of paint, and a sixth tells about his experiences in a mob: "I was caught up on a counter revolutionary attempt and was almost torn apart by a mob. I lived for three or four days under considerable stress and strain. This provided opportunity to study revolutionary and counter revolutionary movements first hand. I had always thought of these as being undertaken by people who knew what they were doing. But now I am convinced that a lot of this comes from people who just want to cut loose and raise a little hell and kick a few people in the pants. " 192 Contrasts in social and economic conditions made the most impact on five others, including one man who feels that "there was no possibility of success in . The nationals almost need to be reborn. " A sanitary engineer sees opportunity in the contrasts: "I had first hand experience with people with needs; I saw people really down and out-—sick children--no water supply-- and people stewing in their own sanitary wastes. " An educational administrator views opportunity differently, in terms of education: "It was the realization that educational opportunities must be opened for millions and millions of youth in developing countries. If these countries are to improve the standard of living and if they are to become self— sustaining, ways must be found to develop edu— cational opportunities and the time is spinning all too fast. I realize that strength of the nation rests so securely in the human resources and democracy depends upon a literate and articulate citizenry. ” Rather than reacting to the contrasts, four men responded to their ability to make progress in the countries where they worked. This public administrator is most articulate: "When you first go in you are all ‘het up'; you go charging in and run up against a brick wall, and you start to go down into a trough. After about six months you are so low and frustrated that you wonder why you are there and what you are supposed to do. When you get to this low point, you begin to pick yourself up, and get to fundamentals and begin approaching the problem in a more correct way. You start the long climb up, finding that eventually you are able to get through to the people and that there is a potential there—-that eventually something will start to happen-- that there are cracks in the armor. You get one little success. You find that at least one person begins to listen to you. You find that you can get through the cultural barrier. " Four others found the unsatisfactory behavior of other North Americans most responsible for affecting their own views. One man tells it this way: 193 "The most critical events were associated with reports by two personal friends. These were excellent technical reports, such as I was used to in the United States. They focused on the shortcomings of the nationals with very little being said about their virtues and good points. As a result, these reports created a great deal of resentment, and were filed. This illustrates an approach that is not effective. In my own approach, I emphasized what was good and could be built upon. " Items mentioned by six as influencing their views were differences in sexual mores, bitterness of colonials toward the United States, and how differently the press of various countries reported the same event. Host Country Contributions to United States. Half of the group see the most important contributions that the country in which they worked can make to the United States as political stability, as a bulwark against communism, and/or as a military base. Some point out that if the United States can help countries such as India, Pakistan, Liberia, and Iran foster and resist communism, these will prove convincing demon— strations for the rest of the world. Other cited contributions of these countries include cultural attributes and materials, nine mentions, and as a supplier of raw materials for and consumer of American products, eight mentions. In four cases, respondents fail to see any contribution. This is a typical comment: “The importance of has been greatly over- emphasized; it's a small pebble on the beach; no resources, no roads, illiterate people; people are not self- sustaining and are starving and diseased. It is a liability to whatever country takes it over. " Inability of more Americans to see how the countries might con— tribute culturally and economically to the United States probably rests in the reaction to the conditions associated with the technical mission. When one sees the country and its culture as interfering with what he is trying to do, it is unlikely that he will note aspects that might be con- sidered of value to the United States. What Americans Can Contribute Abroad. Given the rationales out- lined above, it is not surprising that two-thirds of these Americans say that increasing the stature and improving the image of the United States are the most distinctive contributions Americans such as themselves can make abroad. Only one person mentioned accomplishing the technical objective to which assigned; four others believe that instilling hope and confidence in the nationals is most important. Three feel that overseas Americans can help bridge the gaps between the East and the West, and among various countries. In giving top value to enhancing the stature and image of the United States abroad, these technicians reaffirm the thesis that "Americans want to be liked. ” Likewise, their behavior is consistent with the fact, reported earlier, that their principal evaluation criterion was personal acceptance by the nationals. Many express their concern as "wanting to demonstrate what Americans are really like. " How far some went in this respect is best depicted in the case of a business man: "I went all out in trying to get people to be friendly toward the United States. A majority of Americans go overseas with the idea of entertaining each other and living pretty much to themselves. They take out a great deal more than they are will- ing to put into the job. I spent an awful lot of money entertaining-- in one instance, a cocktail party and dinner for 200 guests.“ On another occasion, he gave a party for high government officials. With the theme being "Texas Independence, ” he imported, at his own expense, by air freight from the states, typical lO—gallon hats which he passed out to the highest officials. Guests received supplies of "Texas money" which they exchanged for food and drinks. He fenced the yard of his home and marked it with signs reading”You are now entering Texas. " 195 Even though desiring to demonstrate that Americans work hard and do not mind dirty work, some reject what they call the "Ugly American" a roach. This technician outlines his osition: PP P ”I don't feel that the 'Ugly American' approach is necessarily the best; we don't have to go and live in a hut, and wash clothes in a brook in order to be well received and well thought of. Rather, you should be yourself--not be an 'Ugly American' fraud. It's an affront to the intelligence of the people. Try to get to know them, and, in addition to your technical contribution, try to show them that all Americans are not loud mouth tourists. " One professional with 10 years experience in technical assistance abroad describes the problems associated with making a technical contribution: ”Everyone should be warned of one pitfall. That is the tend— ency to blame most or all of your frustrations on outside circurn— stances and too little upon your own shortcomings. You are not going to find everyone waiting for your arrival-”you are not the great gift they have been waiting for. You have to do a great deal of selling of yourself and also of the program. It takes more sin- cere and creative effort on the part of the technician than I gave to it to overcome this lack of interest. Toward the end, I was falling into this rut that many American technicians fall into—-of what the hell, if they are not willing to do their share, then why should I? , This is almost built into any one of these jobs. If you let yourself .‘ i become infected with this attitude, you are not being fair to your- V self or to the program. How to sell your program and your contribution to it without becoming overbearing or injuring national pride is something everyone must figure out for himself. ” A few technicians recognize the possibility of an American over- seas helping the nationals, making a technical contribution, and enhanc- ‘ ing the image of America. This public administration official is one: “We must know where we are going in technical assistance. I am concerned that the American public and the technicians going abroad be able to give people the idea of the rights of the individual and the dignity of man. We need to build enthusiasm into people going abroad; everybody who goes out must firmly believe in technical assistance. We must not argue the role of the American abroad—-we are America abroad. ” 196 Influence on the Next Generation. Except for those directly in- volved in educational work, few men expect through their work to influence the next generation in the direction of their changed views and values. Teachers and educational administrators outline a variety of activities in which they are already engaged or which they would like to initiate. These include international aspects of existing courses, more emphasis on comparative education and foreign languages, and student guidance. Among the eight who recognize the potential influence of the teacher are these: "I have strengthened myself in knowledge and techniques of dealing with people. If I stay in the school system, I feel I will have direct opportunity to work with the next generation. " "The job I am presently on is intended to affect major changes in the fundamental approach to education in the United States with emphasis on the international aspects. I am also in a position to expedite research on cultural values. " "I have no opportunity to teach and regret this very much. I feel a need for an exchange program between government and universities. I don't think I can do much unless I write a book or something. Three persons each mention research and writing, public appear— ances, and work on organization committees. Ten persons do not believe | it possible to influence the next generation through their work, ten ‘ others see more possibility of influencing colleagues and others through day-to—day work and social contacts. A soils technician hopes he might diffuse his views on patience among his fellow workers: "By being patient with new workers, I hope they will grasp subject matter and not become upset emotionally. I try to exude patience and confidence so that those around me will take on some of this. ” An adult educator says: ”I don't delude myself that I want to change or improve the next generation. The best I can hope for is to take some of the general values I now hold and introduce these in my day-uto— day working conditions. " The manager of a construction company in the New York area recognizes another kind of opportunity to influence others: ”Labor in the New York area is a remarkable reflection of our country's immigration policies. The unskilled laborers are frequently people just off the boat. I never fail to impress upon them the democratic process of America. ” International Activities and Interests. However strongly the respondents indicate the tour affected their views, the consequences of their tour seem slight in terms of their reported international activities and interests, as these are frequently measured. Analysis of their responses to a form, in which they indicated specific internationally related activities, reveal that what a man says he feels may differ from what he actually does. These differences also suggest that the kind of international interests and activities associated with those professionally involved in international affairs do not necessarily follow from attitudinal or emotional changes relating to international issues. With some people these interests and activities may develop over time, but for others, never. The facilitating or inhibiting factors may include, but probably are not limited to, such items as age, occupation, nature of employment, and related interests of friends and professional associates. At least one-third report no activities or participation in six dif— ferent areas, as listed in Table 2.7 . In other words, during calendar year 1961, one-third of the sample interviewed did not read publications, belong to organizations, serve on boards or committees, participate in professional meetings, engage in professional services outside their 198 Table 27. Participation in international relations, foreign affairs, and technical assistance activities in 1961. Number of Participations International Activities None One Two Three or More Total Publications read regularly I? 4 3 10 34 Membership in organizations 26 5 2 l 34 Service on boards, committees 26 7 l 0 34 Participant in conferences Z4 4 3 3 34 Professional services outside regular employment 29 4 l 0 34 Special work on present job 21 l l 2. O 34 employment, or work on special activities within their own organization which in any way concerned international relations, foreign affairs, and/or technical assistance. If we do not include the seventeen who read publi= cations in these areas, the number who did not engage in these various activities approaches three-fourths of the sample. Bearing out the lack of relevance of the experience or the difficulty of using the experience in business or government—related employment, seven of the twelve who had no activities are in government, the other five in business. A few government employees became heavily involved in international affairs, such as those whose work in other agencies which program foreign nationals who come to the United States to study. The extent of involvement with foreign nationals, as indexed by face-to— face contact,is shown in Table 28. This indicates that while two—thirds of the sample had face-to-face interaction with visiting foreign national professionals during I961, one—third or less had such experiences with students, advisees, and clients. 199 Table 28. Number of face-to—face interactions with foreign nationals in 1961. Numbers of Foreign Nationals Face-to-face Involved interactions as: None l-lO 11-49 50 plus Total Students 22 6 3 3 34 Advisees Z4 7 Z 1 34 Visiting professionals 11 14 6 3 34 Clients 28 1 5 0 34 Casual acquaintances 17 10 4 3 34 Other 20 8 3 3 34 Tables 2.9 and 30 report the extent the returned Americans engaged in correspondence with foreign nationals during 1961. With the exception of two men, all of the sample maintain a correspondence contact. For some, however, this is with only one or two individuals at a frequency of once or twice a year at the most. Table 29. Frequency of correspondence with foreign nationals in 1961. Frequency Number None 2. Other or no report 2 Once a month 8 At least twice a year 2. At least once a year 0 _——_————_—_.—__-———————_—_—-—__——-_—————__-__————-—-—-————-__—-——— 2.00 Table 30. Number of nationals with whom Americans corresponded with greatest frequency. Number of Nationals Number of Americans None 2 Other, or no report 2 1-10 24 11—49 5 50 or more 1 Total 34 Further analysis reveals that all of the eight who correspond at least once a month with a limited number of nationals also correspond with a greater number of nationals on a twice—a—year basis, and with still more once—a-year. Similarly, most of these who correspond on a twice-a-year basis do so with up to twice as many more once=a—year. Only one of the ten who limits his correspondence to once a year corresponds with as many as 10 nationals. These comparisons suggest the members of the sample differ in their ”proneness” to correspond. 1 The data do not indicate that this is associated with the length of time they have been back in the United States. Reflecting the earlier lack of opportunity and concern for influenc- ing the next generation, the publication and public appearance records of these 34 Americans are extremely limited. One wrote a book, two produced journal articles, one a magazine piece, and two some miscel- laneous materials. Two—thirds of the group have not participated in public appearances such as speeches or panel discussions, and most of those who did have done so infrequently. Although nearly two—thirds of the men indicate a desire to work abroad in the immediate or distant future, they do not represent this 2.01 interest in study preparatory to a future assignment. During 1961, two studied foreign languages and six reported other studies, mostly in connection with current employment. More men follow international affairs in the daily press and news magazines than engage in studies. Some criticize the United States press for its distortions of and inadequate coverage of inter- national news. Items which attract their attention are about the country or area in which they worked abroad; political, economic and social developments in other countries; the United States' approaches to foreign aid (legislation, people, policies). We do not have data to compare pre- and post—tour interests. In the extent of their post-tour activities, this group of men, representing a cross-section of the educational, governmental, and business community, differ from academic persons who have been abroad under the Fulbright or Smith-Mundt programs. Findings in studies of these groups support the conclusion previously suggested that experience abroad has maximum career potential for the educator. After studying the post-tour utilization experience of seventy- two Fulbright grantees, MacGregor concludes that their activities in sharing with university groups and the American public some of the benefits of a year abroad was almost entirely a matter of individual initiative. He comments further: "Neither the foundations nor the home universities exploit to the maximum degree the resources that these scholars offer. "1 1Gordon MacGregor, American Fulbright Scholars: The Experi- ences of American Scholars in Countries of the Near East and South Asia. Monograph No. 5, ‘1962. (Ithaca, N. Y.: Society for Applied Anthropology, 1962), p. 50. 202 The Gullahorns1 studied Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grantees. Their preliminary report covers 958 senior scholars, about equally divided into three broad categories; social science, natural science, and humanities. All were affiliated with colleges or universities at the time of receiving their awards, and about half of each group went abroad as lecturers, the other half as research scholars. As a group, the persons the Gullahorns studied display consider- ably more continued involvement with the experience than do most of the men in our study. More than four out of five continued the pro- fessional relationships established with host nationals while abroad. Almost half had made direct arrangements with universities and founda- tions for their foreign colleagues and students to come to the United States for education. At the time studied, the Gullahorn sample had i read a total of 800 papers, published 1, 430 articles and 360 books, with 300 more, books in process. Factors which may account for these differences, in addition to the educational institution affiliation, would include the differences in expectations and context associated with technical assistance assign- ments abroad as compared with the teaching or research assignments usually involved in exchange programs. Compared with the technical assistance person, the academic scholar or teacher who obtains a grant may be unique in that: 1. He frequently speaks the language of the country to which he goes; this usually is one of the conditions of the grant. 2.. Generally, he continues to do abroad about the same kind of work or activity in which he was a specialist, that is, he teaches or he does research. 1John T. Gullahorn and Jeanne E. Gullahorn, Professional and Social Consequences of Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Awards (Washington: International Exchange Service, U. S. Department of State, 1958). 203 3. As a visiting professor, he enjoys what the Gullahorns call the privileged position of the ”equal status stranger; " He is not in direct competition with his hosts, at least not within the same system. I 4. At home, the winning and acceptance of a grant for foreign study or teaching is regarded as a coveted professional honor and a forward step in academic recognition. All of these factors help the academic man to enrich his experi- ence while abroad and contribute to more effective utilization upon return. Our respondents, on the other hand, represent persons who went abroad with different interests, expectations, and, quite likely moti- vations. While abroad, unlike the academic scholars or teachers, they became parts of at least two major administrative systems, the host country organization and the ICA. While abroad few had opportunity to engage in work which would later result in personal or professional publications. Also, as noted earlier, few engaged in activities which they hoped would enhance the utility of the experience in their post— tour pursuits. In returning to the United States as part of the small but growing corps of former technical assistance workers, they experienced changes in their perceptions of themselves, their professions, their organizations, and their country. These changes and differences in perceptions prob— ably reflect, in part, professional and organizational ambivalence about the values of overseas experience and how best to use men who have such. 1John T. Gullahorn and Jeanne E. Gullahorn. ”The Role of the Academic Man as a Cross-Cultural Mediator, " Amer. Soc. Rev. 25:3 (June, 1960), pp. 414-417. 204 Summary 1. Although most men say they had opportunity to remain with ICA, they declined because of location, kind of job available, family reasons, or commitment to other work. 2. Half experienced no letdown upon returning to the states, while others had personal or professional letdowns, or both. When the re- turned American enters a position where he can display his initiative, knowledge and skills, the likelihood of letdown decreases. 3. Two—thirds began working within a month after returning to the states, with fifteen returning to organizations where they worked be— fore going abroad. A few found it easier to locate positions with accept— able salary and status in government than in either non-profit institu— tions or business organizations. 4. In terms of salary and status, two—thirds perceive themselves as faring better than peers without overseas experience. Twentynseven report more salary then they received before going abroad; three say they receive less. 5. Perception of employers' evaluations of the overseas experi- ence vary by occupational field and nature of employing organization. Men view old-line government agencies, such as Agriculture and General Accounting Office, as not valuing such experience. Those em— ployed in educational and public health activities—~in the United States government, non-profit institutions, or state government—-generally perceive positive employer evaluations. Most of those who perceive favorable evaluations of overseas work by both their employers and their professions are engaged in educational work. 6. Regardless of the nature of the employer evaluation, twenty- nine men believe the experience favorably affects the approaches they take to their work and/or the content of their jobs. " _" "“““- .“r‘ . 2.05 7. Few man seem to have taken career continuity or consequences into account in going abroad. Nineteen did nothing while abroad to make the experience more useful or valuable in a job back in the states. 8. At least twenty men express an interest in another tour abroad in the immediate and/or distant future. Family concerns and commit- ments to present employment are the chief factors governing availability. Their preferences on length of tour vary from less than a year to a life— time career, with 3 or more years being cited most frequently. 9. In evaluating the tour, the men describe dividends and views in four general classes: World, personal, professional, and United States. (a) Two-thirds say they gained broader views and greater appreci- ation of other peoples, countries, and cultures. (b) They most frequently name growth, maturity, patience, tolerance, and self-understanding as the personal dividends. (c) Twouthirds believe the overseas tour advanced their professional careers by giving them experience in their professional fields and/or in ways of working with people. Despite this strong belief that their careers had been advanced, half of the men still feel they have been disadvantaged in some ways, such as being by» passed in promotion. At least half of the returned Americans see their profession in new perspectives, some as being more important, while i others are critical of the usual professional concerns. (d) Those who altered their views of the United States did so in one of three ways: they are more appreciative of the United States; more critical of the United States; or, more discriminating in their evaluations of the United States and Americans. , 10. They name these factors as being most influential in affecting their views: Daily personal and social interaction with nationals, exposure to political and physical violence, contrasts in socio-economic conditions, ability to make progress under adverse conditions, and the unsatisfactory behavior of other Americans, in that order. 206 11. They see the host country‘s contributions to the United States chiefly in the realm of political stability—-as a bulwark against com— munism and as a military base. Conversely, they say that the most important contributions Americans such as themselves can make abroad is to increase the stature and improve the image of the United States. Few believe the United States would gain economically from its relations with the host country and even fewer recognize any social or cultural dividends. 12. The foreign nationals with whom two-thirds of the returned Americans maintain face-to~face contact most frequently are visiting professionals. Few maintain frequent correspondence with more than 10 host nationals. 13. Few men expect to influence the next generation through their work. Similarly, nearly three—fourths have not participated in activities associated with international affairs. Although most are interested in going abroad again, practically none have any immediate prospects, and only eight have engaged in any preparatory studies. CHAPTER VIII COMMONALITIES AND TYPOLOGIES AMONG TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SPECIALISTS When we look into a man's behavior in the world of work, we gain knowledge about the man, the work situation, and how the man interacts with the work and those associated with his role. This study further demonstrates the complexity of behavior, some patterns of behavior, and the difficulties of arriving at simple predictors of behavior. A sociolo== gist of occupations, Hughes, writes: "Hence, although a man's work may indeed be a good clue to his personal and social fate, it is a clue that leads us==and the individual himself==not by a clear and single tract to a known goal, but into a maze full of deadends and of unexpected adven- tures. " 1 In this study, we observe how Americans of diverse personal characteristics and backgrounds respond in fairly uniform ways to similar cross~=cultural administrative and professional situations. At the same time, by processing data through an electronic computer, We identify five specific patterns of responses among the thirty-four men. In this chapter, we review the commonalities, present the five typologies, and consider the implications of these for further study. Review of Commonalitie s This section reviews and summarizes data presented in preceding chapters. We organize it here into three areas: Common perceptions 1Everett C. Hughes, Men and Their Work (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958), p. 8. 207 208 men hold of their behavior, their common reactions to the work experi= ence, and the common effects of the experience on their professional and per sonal viewpoints . Common Perceptions of Behavior. Men tend to see themselves favorably, as going beyond the call of duty to succeed in their mission, and handicapped by the American organization, host nationals, or both. They depict themselves as generally taking the initiative in interactions and activities, and of stepping in and doing what was needed to be done even though this might not have been their formal responsibility. They see themselves as having favorably represented the behavior of the typical,- “real” American as opposed to the behaviors which they found objectionable among many Americans abroad. They relate their ability to be both representative and unique Americans to their ability to develop close personal relationships with nationals. They see these relationships as being more intimate, satisfactory, and enjoyable than most of those other Americans develop. They were almost uniformly dependent upon close, personalized relationships with nationals for defining their work, carrying it out, and evaluating their performance. Although most feel that the host country had entered into technical assistance agreements in order to derive other benefits, nearly every person maintains that the nationals had particularly wanted help in his field and appreciated what he was able to do for them. This leads to the hypothesis that in those situations where Ameri- cans sense or recognize that technical assistance is not wanted by the segment of the host government in which they work, they build close personal relationships with nationals to help create a desire for or acceptance of their presence. This reduces the dissonance they en- counter. 209 Common Reactions to Work Experiences. Much literature about overseas work reflects concern for the problems men face in the initial months and discusses the"‘inevitable" culture shock people experience as a reaction to a host of stimuli different from their United States experience. Typically, this literature talks about food, climate, customs, sanitation practices, and health hazards. Few men in this study make an issue of such problems. The problem is some- what over-emphasized; our evidence is fairly conclusive that for most the problems and frustrations mount or become critical after the first six months or when they begin to face the realities of the job to which assigned. Some jokingly refer to this as the “end of the honeymoon." This comment tends to obscure two factors which contribute most to their frustrations. One of these factors is associated with coming to realize that things do not function as they first appear. In comparison with United States experiences, the things which look alike do not necessarily operate the same. The counterpart technicians, for instance, can not do or will not do what the American would expect of an American colleague. The other factor is associated with the process of learning or deu- fining the job, and this is related to the length of time a man expects to spend in the country. Once he decides what he wants to accomplish and realizes that his time is about half spent, the pressure mounts to ”get going, ” and every obstacle now becomes a frustration. Each of the thirty-four men probably was technically competent for the work in which engaged. Yet we have noted that technical compe- tence is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for success. Men in technical assistance also need certain knowledge, ability, and insight; but we infer from the responses that most of the men in this sample lacked these to some degree, and some to a far greater extent than others. We observe, for instance, that a few men are more aware than others that every technical problem is related to people, are flexible and adaptable, and have effective insight on the operations of the host organizations with which they deal. Consequently, they view propo- sitions from alternate points of view and are willing and able to adapt their behavior to the situational demands. These qualities tend to correlate with persons who, prior to going abroad, had held high administrative positions in education and government. When men seriously criticize ICA, these criticisms seem to relate to (a) lack of knowledge of how ICA functions, (b) selfnperceived inability to make full use of their unique competencies abroad, (c) minimal utilization of the overseas experience in a stateside job upon return, and (d) lack of sophistication about learning and the decision=making pr oces 5 es . Common Effects on Viewpoints. Men come out of their diverse overseas assignments probably more alike in their personal and pro- fessional views than when they first went abroad. They evidenced this leveling influence in the high value in which they regard technical assistance as an instrument of American foreign policy even though most criticize its administration. It is also apparent in their more cosmopolitan outlook and interests, in increased patience and tolerance, and in their lack of interest in many of the specific problems of their professions and professional associations. They now see many pro- fessional concerns as being rather provincial and, in light of world problems, insignificant. At the same time, most find that overseas experience does not automatically hold the positive stateside job values they and others assume. Men in old—line governmental agencies and, to a certain extent, in private enterprise believe present and prospective employers are suspicious of their abilities and motives. These men findfew 211 opportunities to use their experience, express boredom with their present positions, and criticize their professions' attitudes toward people with experience abroad. The men generally agree that the most significant contributions persons such as themselves could make abroad are to enhance the image of the United States. Similarly, few believe that the country where they served could contribute anything to the United States beyond political support and as a military base. Typologies of Behavior Similarities and differences in responses to various questions throughout the interviews first led to speculation as to whether patterns of responses might exist. Later, as the analysis of the data progressed, we subjected some response data to elementary linkage analysis, using an electronic computer. This analysis identified five typologies within the thirty-four respondents. Content analysis of the items discriminating the types, taking also into account demographic data not employed in the analysis, suggests the following typology descriptions: Type I - professionally oriented; mostly first-timers abroad. Type II - oriented to interpersonal and social approaches with— in the work role; the majority having prior overseas experience. Type III — oriented to the administrative process involved in technical assistance; first-timers with chiefly experience in educational administration. Type IV - oriented more to the job and the bureaucracy than to the problems, people, or administrative processes of technical assistance; chiefly persons with long— time service in government or non—profit institutions. Type V - chiefly concerned with adventure; all first—timers. 212 In the following pages, we describe the method of approach, the consensus items, and the content or characteristics of the typologies. Method of Approach. We selected responses to some forty-five questions and probes as data for the elementary linkage analysis. Most of these questions are openv-end, free response types, with as many as eight different responses. To simplify machine operation, we treated each response as an individual question, thus dichotomizing the responses in each case to either a "mention" or "did not mention" or a "yes" or "no. " This created 140 different "questions" or items, which after punching on IBM cards, we subjected to the electronic computer' 5 elementary linkage analysis program.1 Questions used in the analysis represent the six general areas of inquiry covered by the preceding six chapters: Factors associated with expectations and satisfaction, factors associated with work pert= formance, workmrelated interaction with nationals, work-related inter- action with Americans, learning in cross—cultural work roles, and post—tour reactions and experiences. All of these questions, plus the code items, appear as Appendix C, and include items such as these: What did you find easy for you to learn? In what particular duties or activities related to your work did you feel most adequate? What about your work frustrated you most? How did you determine how well you were doing? What influence, if any, did you have on the process by which decisions were made in the host organization? 1McQuitty describes elementary linkage analysis as a rapid and objective method for clustering variables into types. "A type is defined as a category of persons (or other variables) of such a nature that every- one in the category is more like someone else in the category than he is like anyone not in the category. " See Louis L. McQuitty, "Elementary Linkage Analysis for Isolating Orthogonal and Oblique Types and Typal Relevancies, ” Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 17, NO. 2, Summer, 1957, pp. 207-229. 213 In what ways were personal relationships important in your work? How did you go about building your influence with nationals? What would you say are your career goals, ambitions, or aspir— ations? To what extent would you say that your overall professional career has been influenced by your tour abroad with ICA? For what would you like host nationals to remember you? We next analyzed the items to determine those in which there was consensus and those which discriminated the various types. Forty-eight items discriminated the typologies, the remaining ninety-two thus becoming consensus items.1 The frequency of occurrence, in terms of percentage, for any item ’1‘ in any type ranged from 0 to 100 percent. We calculated the frequencies of occurrence of each item in each type and then established these arbitrary criteria for the descriptive discrimination of each type from 1 the other types: (a) With Types I, II, III, and IV, by items which occur 1 in each of these types at least 30 percentage points more frequently than 1 in any of the other three types; (b) by those additional items which occur with 75 percent or more of the cases in the type regardless of the spread among typeS, and (c) by considering the items which occur at least 25 percentage points less frequently than in any of the other three types. Because it has few cases, we described Type V by selecting the items which occur at least 25 percentage points more frequently in Types 1, II, III, and IV, and by those items which do not occur in Type V but are represented by at least 25 percent of the persons in each of Types I, II, III, and IV. 1All of the items used in the analysis are listed in Appendix C, and are appropriately coded to identify the nature of discrimination or consensus of each. Appendix E, in addition, shows the percentage of respondents in each type mentioning each discriminating item. 214 Consensus Items. We divided the ninety—two consensus items into three categories: Category Number of Items A: Those to which twenty or more persons responded 7 B: Those to which the response range was from six to nineteen persons 39 C: Those to which the response range was from none to five persons 46 This distribution indicates the problems of free—response answers and fairly open code categories; it results in a large number of items which few people mention. Category A items, arranged by frequency of mention, are as follows: It was important to learn the professional situation, 30. The personal skills and competencies brought to the situation most important to furthering the work were the professional and technical education and experience, 29. Felt most adequate in duties and activities related to principal technical or professional field, 25. It was important to learn procedures related to the work, 21. Recognized playing the role of a communication middleman to some extent, 21. On-the-job activity was a productive way to learn, 21. Would like to be remembered by nationals for professional competencies and accomplishments, 21. Persons interested in Category B and C items may consult Appendix C. It should be noted, however, that the item analysis pre- sented here is across the entire group of men. 'We did not seek to identify the appropriate consensus category for each item with respect to each of the five typologies. 215 At the extreme end of the consensus among "not mentioned" are twelve items which not more than one person in any type mentions. To the extent that these thirty-four men represent a larger body of Americans, this list suggests some of the statements they would be least likely to make or orientations they would be least likely to hold: It is important to learn personal behavior approaches. Training and orientation programs are productive ways to learn. Feel most adequate in the local language. Handle frustrations by accepting the situation. Handle frustrations by marking time. Believe culture or customs not relevant to work. Dislike relations with nationals. Conipromises in moral and ethical values bother me. Inability of American organization to meet its commitments or adjust to necessary standards bothers me. Personal relationships with nationals are important to facilitate analysis of the situation and rate of progress. Personal relationships with nationals are important to make the situation more pleasant and to enhance the image of America. Close relationships with nationals are important to establish mutual confidence and respect as persons. The Five Typologies. The elementary linkage analysis distributed the thirty—four men among the five types: Type I, eight; Type II, eleven; Type III, four; Type IV, eight, and Type V, three. The response and demographic content of these typologies are analyzed below. TYPE I Responses of Type I individuals suggest a strong professional orientation. They differ most from those in Types II, III, and IV in that all eight say the tour worked out better than expected, the professional situation proved difficult to learn, they exercised some influence on the decision-making process, and built their influence with nationals by Ihlt. 216 taking business—like approaches, demonstrating their professional competence, and engaging in frank discussion. For seven of the eight, the greatest professional challenge came from "starting from scratch" on basic problems; six of the eight used impersonal approaches (reading biographies and articles, checking files, asking other people) to find out what host nationals with whom they had frequent personal relations were really like. Six of the eight felt only partly integrated into the American organization, and list pro- fessional dividends as being the most personally worthmwhile result of the tour. Their strong professional bent is consistent with the fact that three-fourths of this group hold advanced educational degrees. Seven of the eight were affiliated with either the United States government or non—profit institutions before going abroad. For five of the eight, this was their first overseas experience. While not differing so distinctly from the other types in the following items, _a_l_l individuals in Type I believe the professional situ— ation was one of the most important items to learn, and _a_l_l would like to be remembered by nationals for their professional competence and accomplishment. . Seven of the eight list their professional competency as the most important personal asset they brought to the work; they felt most adequate in work related to their professional competency, and they handled frustrations by changing or attempting to change themselves. Six of the eight believe on—the-job activities are productive ways to learn, and they felt most inadequate in work requiring adminis- trative and human relations skills. When we consider the items which occurred with Type I cases at least 25 percentage points less frequently than in the other three types, six of the eight in Type I had some letdown after returning to the 217 United States, and six of the eight did something while abroad which they expected would make the experience more useful in a position after returning. Type I individuals were less likely to list "asking questions" as a productive way to learn, and only two of eight would like to be remembered by nationals for their personal and social quali- ties as well as their professional competence. TYPE II Type II individuals differ radically from Types I, III, and IV in responses to four items. These, plus three other items in which there was nearly 100 percent agreement among the eleven men, reflect an orientation to interpersonal and social approaches in the work role. This may arise from the fact that seven of the group had prior overseas experience and recognized that professional competence alone does not assure satisfactory performance. Items which occur at least 30 percentage points more frequently in Type II than in the three other types are: Ninety percent believe their work life and private life abroad was integrated to a greater extent than they had experienced in the United States; 81 percent hold that close relations with host nationals are important ways to build rapport and teamwork, and 72 percent felt most inadequate in duties and activi- ties which involved technical and professional demands outside their immediate technical field, in dealing with national technicians, and in their use of the local language. Ten of the eleven believe that ”asking questions” was a productive Way to learn, and the same number recognize that they had served as a communication "middleman“ to some extent in the host organization. Nine of eleven believe social affairs were useful in furthering the work. There were no items which occur at a frequency of at least 25 Pel‘centage points less than in the other three types. 218 In addition to representing the most prior overseas experience, Type 11 persons tend to be younger, have the most master's degrees, and generally were in higher salary brackets in their positions abroad. TYPE III Individuals in Type III seem oriented to the administrative processes in technical assistance, as opposed to the professional orientation of Type I and the interpersonal or social orientation of Type II. Of the eight items which occur in Type II at least 30 percentage points more fre- quently than in the other three types, Type III individuals agree 100 per- 1 cent on two: (a) The most challenging things about the work were develop— u ing approaches, teaching, training, and helping people, and (b) the com— ?! promises which bothered them most were in work-related and administrative values. Three of the four individuals agree with respect to six items: The professional situation was easy to learn; acceptance by Americans was the primary criterion of evaluation; the American values and ways of doing things they were most interested in introducing were technical and professional standards and criteria; social affairs were partly useful in accomplishing the work; they built influence with nationals by accepting them as equals, showing interest in them personally, helping them to enhance their position, and doing things not called upon to do; and the 1 professional career had been greatly advanced by the tour abroad. All of these individuals mention these five items: It was important to learn procedures; asking questions was a productive way to learn; inadequate administration and organization was a major problem of the host organization and an obstacle to the work; experience and interest in dealing with people was the personal skill and competency most important in furthering the work; and the overseas tour changed their concepts of what they would like to do or be. 219 None of the four had prior overseas service; two have master‘s and two doctor's degrees; all are non-technical in educational orien- tation; all were employed by non-profit institutions in the pre— and post-=tour periods; two of the four were involved in educational adminis- tration and the other two in major executive positions for national educational as sociations . TYPE IV Overall, individuals in Type IV bear an orientation to the over— seas assignment (and to their present jobs, as well) as a job more than as a professional challenge or as a personal, people—related adventure. They tend to be older than those in the other types; two of the eight had prior overseas experience; four had worked for the government before going abroad, and six are working for the government now. Type IV individuals differ in four items which occur at least 30 percentage points greater than in the other three types. Six of the eight say the compromises which bothered them most were in professional and technical criteria and performance. Six of eight built their influ— ence with nationals by meeting them in the work situation and by asking them about problems. Fifty percent say the overseas tour changed their career goals to some extent. On the basis of majority agreement on items, 100 percent believe their professional skills and experience in dealing with people were the most important personal assets in furthering the work. Items in which seven of eight agree include: The professional situation was important to learn; asking questions was a productive way to learn; the major problems of the host organization were inadequate administration and organization; they felt most adequate when working in their major professional field, and the tour abroad did not work to their disadvantage . 220 Items in which six of eight agree are: Reading and observation were considered productive ways to learn; they experienced no frus- trations with the work; acceptance by nationals was their principal criterion of evaluation; they felt completely integrated in the American organization; they did nothing while abroad to make the experience more useful upon return, and the most worth-while results in the tour were changes in their world views. In comparison with the other three types, nine items either do not appear in Type IV or appear at least 25 percentage points less frequently. None of the eight say the professional situation was the toughest part of the work, or list going into or building a business as their current career goal. - Only one person mentions each of the following items: It was important to learn about the relationships and people involved in the work; the major obstacles within the work organi- zation were the abilities and attitudes of the nationals; frustrations were handled by changing or trying to change oneself, and the pro= fessional career was greatly advanced by the tour abroad. Each of these items was mentioned by only two persons: It was important to learn about the customs, culture, country, and history; the work life and private life abroad was integrated to a greater extent than in the United States experience, and they held no re-employment status in their previous positions. TYPE V It is difficult to suggest or label the orientation, if any, of the three men in Type V. It is equally difficult to find trends in the demo- , graphic data. These men seem to reflect individualistic, self—centered points of view, perhaps best describedas an orientation to adventure and excitement. None of these three had education beyond the bachelor's degree; none had prior overseas experience, all were Officed separately from ._. '7i. 13,-T“, M" r , r ' — 221 the USOM, and two of the three were bachelors. Two of the three had been in business before going abroad. Although this type represents only three cases, these represent contradictions and inconsistencies. Nine items occur in Type V at least 25 percentage points more frequently than in the four other types. The three men agree 100 percent about these. All say they found it easy to learn about the people, the customs, and how to get to know and get along with the nationals. Yet, they say they were most frustrated by the attitudes and competencies of the nationals and the inadequacies of the professional situation. All three state they never found out for sure what the host nationals were really like. They list as most challenging the opportunity to demonstrate American ways and concepts, yet all would like to be remembered by the nationals for their personal and social qualities. The tour abroad did not change their concepts of what they would like to do or be. Two of the three mention these items: The American values and ways they were most interested in introducing were the value of work and belief in program, action, efficiency, practicality, and simplicity; their present career goal was to have a job, progress, and be paid satisfactorily, and they perceived good relationships between the American administrative and technical people. The three agree on four items mentioned and nine items not mentioned. They all say it was difficult to learn the professional situ- ation, that their professional competencies were most important in furthering the work, they felt most adequate in activities involving their profession, and that they built their influence by taking a business—like approach. Analysis of the items not mentioned reveal certain positive and negative emphases. None mention the importance of learning about customs and culture, nor do they include observations and surveys as 222 productive ways to learn. None say that experience and interest in dealing with people was important in furthering the work; none indicate that they disliked relations with the Americans or the USOM. They all experienced some frustrations abroad and some letdown upon return to the United States. None mention international work as a career goal, nor cite changes in world views as being something personally worth-while. None indicate any resolution to try and be tolerant and patient after returning from abroad. Relation to Other Types. Twice in this report we said that the behavior and responses of the men suggested certain patterns or ty- pologies. In Chapter II, we identified two basic job orientations, one 1 to job security and the other to job freedom. In Chapter III, we noted the parallel between some of the comments and the four bureaucratic types Reissman identifies. 1 Table 31 shows that Types IV and V primarily come fron the group of security-oriented men, while Types I, II, and III are about equally disposed to job freedom. In other words, eight of the fourteen in the security group are in IV and V, while seventeen of the twenty in the free- dom group are in I, II, and III. Table 31. Job orientation in relation to five typologies. Typologies Job Orientation I II III IV V Total Security 2 3 1 5 3 14 Freedom 6 8 3 ‘3 0 20 Total 8 11 4 8 3 34 1Reissman, pp. 305-310. 223 Inasmuch as the security—freedom issue was established on the basis of the responses to one projective question, these findings suggest possible patterns of behavior that associate with these orientations. The relation to the Reissman bureaucratic types—-functional, specialist, service, and job—-is less clear, although Type I individuals closely parallel the functional type that he describes as being oriented toward and seeking recognition from a given professional group outside of the bureaucracy. And, to a certain extent responses of the men in Type IV suggest a parallel with Reissman‘s ”job bureaucrat, " a person immersed in the structure and seeking recognition along departmental rather than professional lines. Pre- and post—tour employment factors probably confound the orientations of the men in Reissman's terms; some of the men in the sample worked for the government both before and after going overseas; some former government employees no longer are so employed, and some persons previously employed elsewhere now work for the govern— ment. Implications for Further Study Hopefully, an exploratory study identifies possible areas for future productive inquiry and provides methodological experience. Overall, this study suggests the need for further research to help delineate the significant variables which need to be understood about the behavior of Americans in cross—cultural environments. The commonalities and typologies of behavior associated with cross-cultural work roles, as identified in this study, suggest some areas and methods for future inquiry. Other investigators may take the common behaviors, reactions, and viewpoints as givens, or they may wish to determine if these commonalities prevail with other respondents, in different circumstances, and using other research \ 224 approaches. Similarly, a future study could test the stability of the typologies, given larger populations and a greater number of questions. Assuming a stability in these typologies, other investigations might be concerned with the relation of any given typology to long-time career orientations, to performance in differing situations, and to ability to handle frustration and challenge. Other inquiries might document the problems and consequences of interaction in a mission or within a work group where different types are represented. For instance, if Type 11 persons supervise and evaluate Type I persons, how are they likely to perceive Type I indi— viduals and how are Type I persons likely to respond. This analysis could be projected further into the cross-cultural situation in which we assume similar types also exist among the nationals. What happens if the American and his counterpart are of radically different types ? From a procedural standpoint, does a mission gain strength from a combination of types? If so, what combination seems to be associated with the most effective, efficient operation? This study depended almost exclusively upon open—ended ques— tions in order to maximize the opportunities to explore how men per- ceive and talk about their behavior. Analysis of the items used in the linkage analysis (Appendices C and E) reveal not only those items which discriminate various typologies, but also the relative consensus cate- gory for those which did not discriminate. This list could be a starting point for constructing pre-coded responses to the same forty-five questions included in the analysis. Other leads to pre-coded responses can be found in the list of items which “bothered" or frustrated indi- viduals (Appendix B), in the thirty-one tables, in the presentation and analysis of findings, and in the occasional speculations. .'_-‘.'_.t‘i‘_' . _ .. .. . 225 For men as eager to talk about their experiences as these respondents were, it may be advisable to begin with open—ended ques- tions, delaying use of pre-coded response items until such persons have had a chance to discuss freely and rapport has developed. With this study, which started with a series of pre-coded responses, it was necessary to assure several respondents that the interview would consist of only a few such questions. Open- end questions continue to have substantial value in studies in such situations as these: (a) Where the interviewer does not want to suggest answers or ideas to the respondent (for instance, if we had offered a list of items from which the respondent could pick those he thought most important to learn, we likely would have materially affected the responses); (b) when the respondent has had one or more prior experiences abroad; in these cases, it is necessary to ascertain which experience he is talking about, and there frequently is value in eliciting comparative responses; (c) when it is important to tap as full a range as possible of emotional responses; and (d) when the inter- viewer or investigator is unsure of the possible range of responses. Any investigator has the option, as exercised to a limited extent in this study, to include a category of “other” in his pre—coded re— sponses, as well as to introduce such probes as necessary to illuminate any pre-coded response. Summary Data in this study indicate how Americans of diverse personal characteristics and backgrounds respond in fairly uniform ways to similar cross-cultural situations. At the same time, elementary link- age analysis, using a computer, identifies five specific patterns of responses. Tm'f: . . 226 Commonalities of behavior include the similar perceptions they hold of their behavior, their common reactions to the work experience, and the common effects of the experience on their professional and per sonal viewpoints . Content analysis of the items discriminating the elementary link- age analysis typologies, plus consideration of demographic data, suggest the following type Type I - Type II - Type III - Type IV - Type V - descriptions: professionally oriented, mostly first-timers abroad. oriented to interpersonal and social approaches within the work role; the majority having prior experience abroad. oriented to the administrative process of technical assistance; all first—timers. oriented more to the job and the bureaucracy than to the problems, prople, or administrative processes ,1 of technical assistance; chiefly people with long-time / service in government or non—profit institutions. ‘ oriented to adventure and excitement; all first-timers abroad. Both the commonalities and typologies suggest areas for future study to help delineate the significant variables which need to be under- stood about the behavior of Americans in cross-cultural environments. POSTSCRIPT Most of the literature about the behavior of men in cross-cultural technical assistance has been prescriptive, speculative, anecdotal, or problem—oriented. The experience is not easily studied because of the world-wide distribution of the population, the attendant costs and difficulties, and the absence of theory specific to the behavioral dimen— sions involved. In this inquiry, we explored how a group of former technical assistance men perceive and react to their experience. We expected 1 such a study to help identify how Americans go about such assignments, what they perceive as problems and opportunities, and how they appraise these. In a larger sense, we were concerned with the patterns of be- havior related to a cross-cultural work role. Every study of necessity is limited in what can be investigated, how well, and to what extent. Limitations unique to this exploration included the following: (1) The sample is small and not fully representative of American technical assistance personnel in that it did not include men presently employed. Those interviewed are no longer with ICA or engaged in cross—cultural technical assistance. (2) Data are based on recall. Post-tour experience, selective memory, and rationalization probably conditioned the men's recol- lections. In addition, post-tour experiences could appreciably influence their feelings and outlook by providing opportunity to reinterpret past events in terms of current circumstances as well as to impose an order on what originally were discrete items of experience. 227 ,.._. _-..__ (3) It proved difficult to obtain data in certain areas of behavior. Although the men seemed eager to talk about their experiences abroad, they frequently expressed how they thought or felt as opposed to describ- ing the object of their emotions. This led many to use slang, idioms, cliches and figures of speech, perhaps reflecting a patterned emotional response to the topic being considered. Specifically, they found certain facets of their own behavior hard to communicate, such as describing their activities and responsibilities, their learning processes, and their understanding of and influence on decision—making. (4) Other sources of data remain unexplored. This study directed its concern to the behavior of Americans as they perceived and reported upon their behavior. More complete understanding of Americans in cross-cultural work must depend upon not only interviewing the men involved but also such “significant others" as the wife, members of the family, and work colleagues, both American and host national. Similarly, personnel and performance records could be used to cross- check respondent data and to obtain information either not known to the respondent or which he would not be likely to report. Despite these shortcomings, the study noted how Americans of diverse personal characteristics and backgrounds responded in fairly uniform ways to similar cross—cultural administrative and work situ— ations. At the same time, it identified other patterns of responses characteristic of smaller groups of men. Their typologies of behavior supplement the commonalities observed in their perceptions of them- selves, in their reactions to the work experience, and in their post—tour viewpoints. The implications of these findings and observations for adminis- tration of personnel in cross—cultural technical assistance will depend upon the administrator and the circumstances as well as other factors influencing behavior. This study demonstrated the complexity of ”La...“ ,___. ,. 229 behavior and the difficulties of arriving at simple predictors of behavior. Recognition of the range of political, organizational, personal and other aspects in the total context of international technical assistance leads to caution about speculating upon the implications of these observ— ations for administrative policy and procedure. In addition to noting the problems and difficulties it also is im- portant to perceive the strengths associated with the American technical assistance effort and its personnel. Available literature, in dwelling on problems, tends to overstress the weaknesses and to under—estimate the strengths. One strength is found in the fact that, despite varying interpre- tations of the objectives of technical assistance at home and abroad, field operations generally permit technical personnel considerable free- dom to develop and carry out their work along professional lines. This is evidenced in the frequency with which men responded favorably to the professional challenge they found in their work, in their enthusiasm about "starting from scratch, " in their continued faith in technical assistance as a major instrument of foreign policy, and in their almost universal willingness to go abroad again in similar assignments. The five typologies refute the notion that the technical assistance program attracts and employs individuals of a characteristic type. These typologies reflect an image of men with diverse but positive orientations, interests, and competencies. - In addition, the data indicate that, with one or two exceptions, all of these men located in responsible, well-paying positions upon return from overseas. When these men find Opportunity to use their overseas experiences in their current work, they do so. When they do not, they are restless and are likely to move into positions where there is more opportunity or where their contribu- tions are more appreciated. 230 Finally, these men represent a small but important segment of a growing body of Americans with varied international experiences and whetted interests in world events. Thus the variables identified in this study are significant in the lives of men in technical assistance, and are not only relevant for administrators but for those Americans concerned with building up in the nation a group of men with significant cross-cultural experience. With this corps of men continually growing, it is important that we be concerned with how to make men more effective abroad and how to make greater use of their experience back home. BIBLIOGRAPHY Literature Cited and Background Material Books Ahlberg, Clark D. and John C. Honey. rAttitudes of Scientists and Engineers About Their Government Employment. Vol. 1. Syracuse: Syracuse University, Maxwell Graduate School of Citizenship and'Public Affairs, July, 1950. Almond, Gabriel and James S. Coleman. The Politics of the Develop— ing Areas. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. Argyris, Chris. Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness. Homewood, Illz' ' The Dorsey Press, Inc. , 1962. Benedict, Ruth. .Patterns of Culture. NEW’YOI‘kt The New American Library Mentor Book, 1946. Berlo, David K. .The'Process of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 81 Winston, 1960. Blake, R. R. and Ramsey, G. V. -Perception: An Approach to Personality. New York: RonaldIPress, 1951. Cleveland, Harlan, Gerard J. Mangone and John Clarks Adams. The Overseas Americans. ‘New‘York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960. Combs, Arthur W. and Donald Snygg. Individual Behavior. .A Perceptual Approach to Behavior. ‘New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. des. Brunner, Edmund, gt a_.1. An Overview of Adult Education Research. Chicago: Adult Education Association, 1959. Fayerweather, John. .The Executive Overseas. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1959. 231 232 Foster, George M. Traditional Cultures: and the Impact of Techno» logical Change. New York: Harper 81 Brothers, 1962.. Green, Arnold. Sociology, An Analysis of Life in‘ModernVSociety. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1956. Gross, Edward. Work and Society. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1958. Hall, . Edward T. The Silent Language. Garden City: Doubleday & Co. ,1 1959. Havighurst, Robert J. , John W. Baughman, .Walter H. Eaton, and Ernest W. Burgess. The American Veteran Back Home: A Study of Veteran Readjustment. NewYork: Longmans, Green and. Co. , 1951. Hilgard, Ernest R. Theories of Learning. »New York: Appleton- Century—Crofts, Inc., 1956. Homans, George C. 7 Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New ‘York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1961. .Hughes, Everett C. Men and Their Work. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958. Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure. . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953. Kidd, J. R. How Adults Learn. - New York: Association Press, 1959. Knowles, Malcolm-S. (ed.) Handbook of Adult Education in the United States. Chicago: Adult Education Association, 1960. Lee, Dorothy. Freedom and Culture. New York: Spectrum Book, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959. Lederer, William J. and Eugene Burdick. The Ugly American. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1958. Merton, Robert R. .Social Theory andSocial Structure. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1949. Miller, N. E. and J. Dollard. .Social Learning and Imitation. -NeW'Haven: Yale University Press, 1940. 233 Mowrer, O. Hobart. Learning Theory and Behavior. ~New'York: John Wiley 8: Sons, 1960. Murphy, Gardner. Pchhological Needs of Adults. Chicago: Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults, 1955. Pratt, George K. Soldier to Civilian: Problems of Readjustment. New York: Whittlesey House, 1944. Rogers, Carl. Counseling and Psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. , 1942. Schramm, Wilbur (ed.) The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1954., Thomas, W. I. and Dorothy Swaine Thomas. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928. Useem, John and Ruth Hill Useem. The Western Educated Man in-India. New York: The Dryden Press, 1955. Vroom, Victor H. Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Perception. New York: Prentice-Hall, , Inc. , 1960 Watson, Jeanne and Ronald Lippitt. Learning Across Cultures. A Study of Germans Visiting America. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1955. Weidner, Edward W. The World Role of Universities. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1962. Williams, Robin. American Society. A Sociological Interpretation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1958. Articles and Reports Bateson, Gregory. "Social Planning and the Concept of ’Deutero- Learning. "' In Science, Philosophy and Religion, Second Symposium. New York: Conference on Science, , Philosophy and Religion, 1942. Reprinted in Newcomb, Theodore and Eugene L. Hartley (eds.) Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt andeo. , 1947. 234 -Caldwell, Lynton K. . "The Role of the Technical Expert, " The Annals of the American Acad. of P01. 81 Soc. Sci. Vol. 323,. (May, 1959), 91-99. Esman, Milton J. Needed: An Education and-Re search Base to Support America's Expanded Commitments Overseas. Pittsburg,. Pa.: University of Pittsburg Press, 1961. Festinger, Leon. "A Theory of Social Comparison Process. " Human Relations. Vol. 7 (1954), 117—140. Reprinted in Hare, Paul, et al., Small Groups: Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Alfie-(TA: Knopf, 1955, 163-187. . "The Motivating Effect of Cognitive Dissonance, " in Lindzey Gardner (ed.) Assessment of Human Motives. -New York: Grove Press, Inc. (Evergreen E—204), 1960, 65—86. Gibb, Jack R. . "Learning Theory in Adult Education, " in Knowles, Malcolm S. , (ed.) Handbook of Adult Education in the United States. Chicago: Adult Education Association, 1960. Gross, Neal and Ward 5. Mason. ”Some Methodological Problems of Eight Hour Interviews, " Amer. Jour. of Soc. LIX, No. 3 (November, 1953), pp. 197-204. Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. Working Abroad: A Discussion of Psychological Attitudes and Adaptation in New Situations. Report No. 41. Publications Office: 104 East 25th Street, New York, 1958. Gullahorn, John T. and Jeanne E. Gullahorn. Professional and Social Consequences of Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Awards. Washington: International Exchange Service, . U. S. Department of State, 1958 (mimeographed). "The Role of the Academic Man as a Cross—Cultural Mediator, " Amer. Soc. Rev. Vol. 28,1No. 3 (June, 1960), 414-17. Houle, Cyril O. The Inquiring Mind. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961. Lee, Dorothy. "The Cultural Curtain, “ The Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Pol. & Soc. Sci. Vol. 323, (May, 1959), 120-128. 235 Mangone, Gerard J. "How Can we Better Educate Americans to-Work and Study Abroad? " Current Issues in Higher Education, 1960. Washington: National Education Association of UnitedStates, 119- 123 . MacGregor, Gordon. American Fulbright Scholars: The Experiences of American Scholars in Countries of the Near East and South Asia. Monograph No. 5. Ithaca, N. Y.: Society for Applied Anthropology, 1962. McGuigan, F. J. "Further Study of Psychological Changes Related to Intercultural Experiences,"‘Psy. Rev. Vol. 5 (1959), 244—248. Mendelsohn, Harold and Frank E. Orenstein. "A Survey of Fulbright Recipients: Cross-Cultural Education and Its Impacts," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Winter, 1955—56), 401-407. McClintock, Charles G. and James Davis. "Changes in the Attribute of 'Nationality' in the Self-Percept of the 'Stranger, "' Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 48 (1958), 183—195. McQuitty, Louis L. "Elementary Linkage Analysis for Isolating Orthogonal and Oblique Types and Typal Relevancies, " Educational and Psychological Measurements, Vol. 17, No. 2, (Summer, 1957), 207-229. Mandell, Milton M. "Selecting Americans for Overseas Assignments, " Personnel Administration, Vol. 21, No. 6 (Nov.-Dec., 1958), 28—30. Newcomb, T. M. "The Prediction of Interpersonal Attraction, " American Psychologist, Vol. 2 (1956), 575—86. Ohly, JOhn. "Planning Future Joint Programs," Hum. Org., Vol. 21, No. 2, (Summer, 1962), 137-153. Porter, EliaS. “The Parable of the Spindle, " Harvard Business Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, (May-June, 1962), 58-66. Proceedings of Modern Language Association. Appendix B, Qualifications for Teachers of Modern Foreign Languages. Vol. .70, No. 4, . Part 2, (September, 1960), Washington: U. S. Office of Education. Reissman, Leonard. "A Study of Role Conceptions in Bureaucracy, " Social Forces, (March, 1949), 305-310. Sanders, Irwin T. , (ed.). Interprofessional Training Goals for Technical Assistance Personnel Abroad. New York: Council on‘Social Work Education, 1959. Sayre, Wallace and Clarence Thurber. Training for Specialized Mission Personnel. Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1952. Smith, Howard P. "Do Intercultural Experiences Affect Attitudes?" Journal of Abn. 81 Soc. Psy., Vol. 51, (1955), 469-477. Smith, Howard P. "The Effects of Intercultural Experience - A Follow-up Investigation, " Journ. Abn. 81 Soc. Psy., Vol. 54,- (1957), 266-269. Smith, M. B. ”Did War Service Produce International-Mindedness?" Harvard Educ. Rev., Vol. 15, (October, 1945), 250—257. Torre, Mottram. "Performance and Adjustment of American Personnel in Overseas Missions, " in Americans at Work Abroad. Syracuse: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, March, 1957. Useem, John and Ruth. "Social Stresses and Resources Among Middle Management Men, " in Jaco, E. Gartly, Patients, Physicians and Illness. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958. Useem, Ruth. "Interpersonal Relationships Between Indians and Americans in India, ” in Application of Psychiatric Insights to Cross-Cultural Communication. Symposium No. 7, GrOup for the Advancement of Psychiatry, 104 E. 25 Street, New York, (April, 1961). U. S. Civil Service Commission. Research Project on Selection Methods for Overseas Employees. Washington: Examining and Placement Division U. S. Civil Service Commission, August, 1953. Verner, Coolie and John S. Newberry, Jr. "The Nature of Adult Participation, " Adult Education, Vol. 8, (Summer, 1958), 208-222. Woodruff, Elaine. "Selection of Personnel for Overseas Employment, " Personnel Administration, Vol. 15, No. 4, (July, 1952), 20-24. Zimmerman, Claire and Raymond A. Bauer. 4 "The Effect of an Audience Upon What is Remembered, , Pub. »Op. Quart. , Vol. 20, (1956), 238-248. 237 Other Sources Agency for International Development. The Story of A. I. D. , Washington, D. C. , 1962. Busset, Glenn M. "The Personal and Interpersonal Relationships Affecting the Work of American Advisers to the Extension Service of a Foreign Area. " Unpub. M. S. thesis, Cornell University, February 1957. International Cooperation Administration. - "America's Helping Hand. " Washington, D. C., undated. International Cooperation Administration. USOM Position Listing. Washington, D. C., June, 1960. Minutes of MSU Overseas Orientation and Training Committee. Office of Dean of International Programs, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1960. Montgomery, John D. "Crossing the Culture Bars: An Approach to the Training of American Technicians for Overseas Assignments.” Unpublished paper prepared for Princeton Conference on Training Americans for Overseas Technical Assistance. " November, 1960. Myers, Noel T. "Characteristics of Most and Least Effective Inter- national Cooperation Administration Educators Overseas. " Unpub. Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, Bloomington. 1960. Perlmutter, Howard V. "Person to Person: A Psychological Analysis of Cross-cultural Relationships. " Topeka, Kan.: The Menninger Foundation, unpublished, October, 1960. Thurber, Clarence E. "The Problem of Training Americans for Service Abroad in U. S. Government Technical Cooperation=Programs. ” Unpub. Ph. D. diss., Stanford University, April, 1961. Useem, John, John D. Donohue, and Ruth Hill Useem. ”Men in the Middle of the Third Culture: The'Roles of American and Non- Western People in Cross-Cultural Administration. ” Paper pre— sented to American Political Science Association, Washington, D. C., September, 1960. Human Organization (forthcoming). APPENDICES 238 U1 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW SCHEDULEI . In terms of your expectations in entering on this tour, how would you say that things worked out for you? 1. Far better than expected; 2. Generally better than expected; 3. About as expected; 4. Generally worse than expected; 5. Far worse than expected. . As best as you can now recall, how did you feel generally about this tour of duty at the time you left ICA? 1. Extremely satisfied; 2. Generally satisfied; 3. Moderately satisfied; 4. Generally unsatisfied; 5. Extremely unsatisfied. . When one has completed a job he usually has a hunch or notion about how well he has done according to his own criteria. This feeling may be completely independent of how he thinks others may have rated his performance, either officially or unofficially. With respect to this tour of duty abroad with ‘ICA, how would you rate your own performance? 1. Excellent; 2. Very good; 3. Good; 4., Fair; 5. Unsatisfactory. . Before arriving in the country, what did you expect to be doing as the result of the information you had received incident to being recruited, processed, and briefed? a. What were your principal sources of this information? . After arriving in the country, what did your principal activitiesand duties turn out to be? a. From what and whom did you learn this? b. What was the process of learning about your work? . How long did it take? 1Where preécoded responses were used, theSe are included and follow the que stion. 239 6. Please draw some simple charts of the American organization and of the host organization or organizations most relevant to your work, showing where you were located in these organizations? Also, put in the key individuals as far as your work was concerned. a. How did these organizations meet for policy and operating matters? b. What provincial, state, regional, and local organizations were involved in what you did? c. How did the various levels interact with each other in relation to what you were trying to do? . What concepts of purpose or objective relating to your work were held by host nationals? a. Was there agreement or conflict among the nationals as to why you were there? b. How did you find out whether there were agreements or conflicts? c. How did you handle the conflicts ? . How long had the position to which you were assigned existed? a. Had it been filled previously? b. How long had it been vacant awaiting your arrival? c. Was your predecessor still there? If YES: How long an overlap did you have? d. Did the presence of your predecessor hold any particular advantages for you ? Any disadvantages ? . What did you try to learn from your predecessor? (D . How did you learn from him? Who had to take the initiative . . . you as learner, or he as teacher? I‘h What problems, if any, did you have from the fact that the work had been started by someone else? 0Q 11. 12. 14. 15. 16. . In your judgment, what were the major problems of the host organi- zation which were obstacles with respect to the work in which you were engaged? a. How did you come to have a fairly clear grasp of these? . What was your principal role over the period of your tour? During the course of this tour, did you have any major changes in role or in position assignment? a. If so, what were these changes? What did you do in each of these roles ? . In the performance of your role, what Americans were most important to you? a. In what way? b. At what periods of time? In the performance of your role, what host nationalswere most important to you? a. To help define and clarify what you were to do? b. To help in your day=to-day work activities? What personal skills, competencies, prior experiences, etc., did you bring to the situation that were most important in furthering the work? In what particular duties or activities related to your work did you feel . . a. Most adequate? b. Most inadequate? . What about your work frustrated you most? a. At what times during the tour did most of these occur? b. How did you handle these frustrations ? 1.. . .....__ 4. . 242 18. How did you determine how well you were doing? a. How did you come to depend upon these criteria? 19. If you had a counterpart, what did you know about him . . 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26 27. a. As a member of the organization: What role did he have? What was he responsible for ? What influence did he have? How was he picked as your counterpart? b. As a professional: c. As a person . . . at work, socially? d. How did you come to know what you did about your counterpart? Did you have more than one counterpart? YES NO a. What was the relationship between your counterparts? b. What did you know about this other counterpart? (Repeat Q. 18) As far as you were concerned professionally, what were the most Challenging things about your work? What customs of the people made the job difficult or easy for you? What aspects of the culture made the job difficult or easy for you? What about either the customs or the culture continued to baffle you? What aspects of American values, ways of doing things, etc. , were you most concerned with introducing in or relating to your work and the host nationals associated with it? . What did you consider the toughest part of your work? What part of your work did you dislike to do? 28. 29. 30. 31. '32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 243 If you we re a "lone wolf" in your specialty or field, how did you feel about this ? a. How did it affect how you worked? In relation to your work, what compromises in work objectives, level of technology, or standards of performance bothered you most? With respect to the national organizations you have identified as relating to your work, where was it most productive for you to concen- trate your efforts? Why? Who were the key decision makers in the national organization? How did you go about identifying the decision makers? To what extent, if any, were national technicians involved in decision making? As far as you were concerned, who were the most important people engaged in making decisions in which you were involved . . . a. In American organization? b. In host organization? c. To what extent, and in what way, did political considerations influence the decisions other people were making in relation to your work? What principal factors did others use in making decisions relating to your work . a. Americans? b. Nationals? About what things, if any, did you influence the decision makers? What influence, if any, did you have on the process by which decisions were made in the host organization? - I’! 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 244 Now'I'd like to explore an aspect of overseas work which has not been analyzed or documented to any degree. We are interested in what Americans believe was MOST IMPORTANT for them to learn in order to carry out their technical assistance job. We alsoare interested in learning more about the sources one turns to for information and help. a. What did you feel most important to learn with respect to your work? b. What for you were the most useful and productive sources and activities in learning what you felt important? Before we leave this issue of learning, I have a few more questions: a. About what things in the world of work were you most apt to ask questions of host nationals ? b. About what things in the world of work were you most apt to‘ask questions of Americans? c. What did you find it easy for you to learn? d. What was it hard for you to learn? d. How do you feel about yourself as a learner? What barriers existed to reaching certain host nationals in the organi- zation whom you would have liked to reach from time to time? a. How did you become aware of these? b. How did you adapt to these barriers, or overcome them? What barriers existed to reaching certain Americans in your own organization whom you would have liked to reach from time to time? a. How did you become aware of these? b. How did you adapt to these barriers, or overcome them? In what ways did some knowledge of the language help you? a. In what ways did some knowledge of the language handicap you? 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 245 In what ways would have ability (or increased ability) in the language have helped you? What changes did you find it appropriate or necessary to make in the way you talked and gestured? While working abroad in technical assistance some Americans have reported that their role sometimes might best be described as being a middleman in a communication sense-=-that is, through them com— munication between various persons and offices in the host organiza— tion took place. WHAT WAS YOUR EXPERIENCE IN‘THIS LINE? a. At the time, were you aware of what you were doing in this respect? b. How did you feel about this role? In day-to-day interaction with host nationals in the work organization, who usually initiated the interaction, a host national or yourself ? When you and your counterpart would be working withand initiating interaction with or activity for other people, who would usually initiate the interaction or activity—=you or your counterpart? In day=to~day relationships with host nationals in the work organization in which initiation of action was involved, who usually would be the initiator--you or a host national? How did you go about giving advice to people? In what ways were personal relationships important in your work? How did you go about finding out what the host nationals with whom you had frequent personal relationships were "really like"? Under what circumstances, if any, did host nationals related to your work seek you out and initiate personal relations? a. What did you do? Did you feel it important to exercise control over the kind of personal contacts you made and with whom you would make them? a. How did you attempt to exercise this control? b. How successful were you? 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 246 Let's consider the personal relations with the specific host nationals in your world of work: a. With whom did you feel most "close"? Did you believe it to be important to your work to have close relationships? Why? b. What does a "close" personal relationship mean to you? c. How long did it take to establish the personal relationships you considered"'close"? (1. Who took the initiative in developing these "close" relationships? e. Did you have anyone with whom you could "let down your hair"? f . What were the characteristics of this person? g. Was this a reciprocal relationship? What host nationals were antagonistic toward you? What would antagonize host nationals ? How did you find this out? How did personal relationships with nationals impede or interfere with your work? In what way did any of the host nationals with whom you had personal relationships try to use you or work through you to achieve ends of their own not related to your work? a. What did you do? Were social affairs with host nationals useful in accomplishing your work? a. If so, in what ways? b. What were the "ground rules" about social interaction with nationals in relation to your work? With which host nationals did you feel you had the greatest influenCe in matters relating to your work? 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. a. b. 247 What were the educational backgrounds of these persons? How did you go about building your influence with them? What host nationals were most important to you in determining your overall course of action? How successful were you at getting nationals to tell you how they really felt about something? a. b. Work relationships with Americans in the overall American organization: How did you do this? Did you let them know how you really felt? For what purposes did you have work relationships with Americans who supervised you (or were superior to you)? Frequency? Quality? . For what purposes did you have work relationships with'Americans who were your professional peers and associates? Frequency? Quality? . For what purposes did you have work relationships with Americans who were subordinate to you? Frequency? Quality? Work relationships with the overall American organization: a. b. How much a part of the American organization did you feel? How dependent were you upon the American organization? . Did you feel that you were incorporated within the American organization? . Did you feel that you were socially separate from it? . Were you continually a part of the organization, or only occa sionally ? Work relationships with that part or section of the American organi_ zation to which you were assigned or attached: a. How much a part of the work group did you feel? 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 248 b. How dependent were you upon the work group? c. Did you feel that you were incorporated within the work group? d. Did you feel that you were socially separate from it? e. Were you continually a part of the work group, or only occasionally? In what ways did the American organization differ from bureaucracies with which you were already familiar? What spirit characterized operational relationships within the USOM? a. Between central office and field personnel? b. Between administrative and technical people? c. Among various work groups? d. Over what did competition exist? e. Did any factions or feuds exist or develop during your tour? f. If so, how did these affect your work? Did you become involved spending time with or arranging for VIP's? a. How did these activities relate to your other duties? b. How did you feel about such assignments? In comparison with your U. S. experiences, was your work life and your private life abroad inter-related to a greater or less extent, or about the same? a. How did you adapt to this ? did you discuss your work In com arison with our U. S. experiences, P Y less extent, or about the and problems with your wife to a greater or same? a. How did you and your wife adapt to this? In what other ways did your wife help you with your work and work- related re sponsibilitie s ? 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 249 In comparison with your U. S. experiences, did you have more, less, or about the same amount of free time (that is, time neither pre- empted by the job or by outside responsibilities . . . home, com— munity, etc.) ? a. How did you spend this free time? Either previous to or at the time you completed your tour with ICA . . . a. Did ICA offer you opportunity to remain with‘ICA, either abroad or in the United States ? b. If YES: Why did you choose not to remain with ICA? At what point in your tour had you decided to leave ICA? c. If NO: Would you have liked to remain with ICA? What formal or informal re-employment status did you have with the organization with which you were affiliated immediately prior to going abroad ? Are you now working for the same organization that you did before going abroad ? 1. Yes, same position, little or no change; 2. Yes, same position, but considerably changed; 3. Yes, but different position; 4. No. How did you learn about your present job? a. If you had a choice of jobs, why did you choose this one? b. Do you regard this job as permanent, or in some other way? How soon after leaving ICA did you go back to work regularly? WEEKS; _______MONTHS; What has been your employment in sequence, beginning with the first after leavingICA) What would you say are your career goals, ambitions, or aspirations now? NOT RE GULARLY EMPLOYED record since leaving ICA? (List jobs, 1 250 80. With respect to the career goals and ambitions that you had-at the time you went abroad with ICA, to what extent have these changed, if at all? 1. Considerably changed; 2. Changed some; 3. Very few changes; 4. Remained essentially the same; 5. Don't know. a. What are these changes? What has influenced them most? 81. How does the organization where you are employed value overseas experience such as you have had? a. How does this influence you? 81a. How does your profession value overseas experience such as you have had? a. How does this influence you? 82. If you compared yourself with other persons in your organization whom you regard as being similar to you in age, ability, and experience (excepting that they have not had overseas experience), how would you say that you have fared . . . a. In Salary: 1. Considerably better than most; 2. Somewhat better than most; 3. About the same as most; 4. Somewhat poorer than most; 5. Considerably poorer than most. b. In Status: (Same categories as above) 83. In comparison with the annual salary or income you were receiving from your employment or business in the period immediately prior to going abroad, is your current annual salary or income . . . l. Considerably more; 2. Somewhat more; 3. About the same; 4. Somewhat less; 5. Considerably less. 84. What is the annual salary or income bracket for the position you occupy? 85. To what extent would you say that your overall professional career has been influenced by your tour abroad with'ICA? (or other tours abroad?) 251 l. Greatly advanced; 2. Somewhat advanced; 3. Neither advanced nor retarded to any extent; 4. Somewhat retarded; 5. Greatly retarded. a. In what ways do you feel that you have gained professionally by the overseas experience? b. In what ways do you feel you have been placed at a disadvantage (or may have lost) by the overseas experience? 86. Does your organization encourage or discourage you to use your overseas experience in your present position? a. How does this influence what you do? b. How do you feel about this? 87. Many people who have been abroad . . dealing in high places with important persons . . . working on big projects involving‘lots of money . . and the like-=tend to experience sort of a letdown upon returning to their stateside work. What has been your experience along this line? (Probe for lowered status, . less scope in job, less excitement, etc.) a. To what extent was it necessary for you to bring yourself upwtomdate in your professional field? How did you go about doing this? 88. To what extent does your present position provide opportunity to make direct use of your overseas experience? 1. Practically all of time; 2. Most of the time; 3. Occasionally; 4. Seldom; 5. Not at all. . What aspects of your overseas experience are most useful to you on your job? b. With respect to the content of your job? With respect to the approaches you take to your work? 89. What might be done to make more use of your overseas experience . in your present position? 1 ~ 1 a. Why hasn't this been done? F '7.-- iiifi'éfitrmu’i’m“ _____‘. 90 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 252 While you were overseas, what, if anything, were you able to do to make your experience more useful or valuable in a job back in the U. S. ? If you were to go abroad again, what might you try to do to be able to make more use of the experience on job after returning? Given your present situation, are you interested in an overseas job in technical assistance a. In the near or immediate future ? b. Sometime in the distant future? If respondent says YES or IT DEPENDS "in the distant future": When do you feel you might be interested in another tour of duty abroad in technical assistance work? What year: a. What are your reasons for picking that year? If you could specify most of the terms under which you would accept a technical assistance assignment abroad at some time in the future, what would be some of the terms you would think it most important to specify? Supposing at the end of your tour with ICA you would have had a chance to talk with the head of ICA for 20 minutes. What suggestions and recommendations would you have been most interested in making to him? For what do you think host nationals with whom you worked most remember you? a. For what would you LIKE to have them remember you? b. Supposing I were to talk to your counterpart, how do you think he would describe you? While abroad, what changes in the way you thought, felt, acted, or lived did you resolve to retain after returning to the United States? a. What has happened to these resolutions? 253 98.. What skills, talents, and abilities do you feel you discovered in yourself while working abroad? a. How are these important to you now? 99. As a result of the overseas experience, how have you changed your concepts of what you wouldlike to do or be? 100. How do you feel that through your work you might influence the next generation in the direction of your changed views and/or values? 101. In what ways has the overseas experience led you to alter your under— standing about or change your interests in a. The underdeveloped countries and areas of the world? b. The United States of America? c. Your own profession? d. Your own organization or institution? 102. What contributions do you feel that the country in which you worked can make . a. To the United States? b. To your profession? c. To your organization or institution? 103. How do you think people in your profession who have had overseas experience might exercise the most influence within the profession here in the United States ? 104. What do you feel is the role or distinctive contribution of your profession with respect to the under-deve10ped areas of the world? 105. What are the distinctive contributions that Americans such as yourself can make overseas? 106. What factors or events in theoverseas situation do you feel were most influential in changing your outlook and in modifying the viewyou hold? 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. What was your personal reaction to the attitudes and activities of the Americans you met when you first returned from abroad? a. How do you feel about Americans now? How have you changed, if at all, in what you recognize as world problems, and how do you feel about these? As a result of your experience, are you more orless optimistic about the future of the world? Why? In looking back over your overseas experience, what do you feel that you have really gotten out of this that has been worth-while for you? Now that we are all through, and considering what we have talked about and the questions that I have raised . . . What have I missed that you feel was a significant aspect of either your overseas work experience, or what has, happened to you and how you-feel since returning? What else would you have liked to talk about? APPENDIX B ITEMS WHICH "BOTHERED" OR FRUSTRATED Respondents received a form, listing 50 items, which Americans working abroad in technical assistance have reported as "bothering" or frustrating them at some time or other during their tours. After each item, we asked respondents to: (1) Check to what extent that it had "bothered" or frustrated them, using four categories of frequencyn-most of time, quite frequently, now and then,, and never; (2) Check how important this item was to them, regardless of its frequency, using three categories—nhigh, medium, and low. Taking both checks into account, we arrived at the following summary code for the items, these numbers being used in the item list below to show the distribution of checks for the various items. No reply; not applicable =- Most of time; high importance Quite frequently; high importance - Now and then; high importance Never; high importance thNv—io l Most of time; medium importance Quite frequently; medium importance — Now and then; medium importance — Never; medium importance (”\IOU'I I 9 - Most of time; low importance 10 — Quite frequently; low importance 11 - Now and then; 10w importance 12 - Never; low importance 13 - Never; importance not indicated (assumed low) Note: Thirty—three of thirty—four respondents returned the form. 255 256 Item 10 ll 12 13 . Prevailing concepts of mission objective . Nature of work in rela— tion to expectations . Nature of work in rela- to my abilitie s . Situation created or left by predecessor . Changes in my position or duties . Compromises with own standards . Indefinite nature of dutc— ie 5 and re sponsibilitie s . Delays, red tape in den cisions relating to job . Strange office routines and procedures . Conflicts in what others expected of me . Lack of criteria for judging performanc e . Lack of professional challenge in job . Extent my abilities used in the work . Extent free to make my own decisions . Time spent with visitors and non—technical work . Amount of travel in- volved in job 0 5 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 3 l 4 0 2 3 2 O l 5 8 0 5 3 1 0 6 3 3 0 7 0 0 1 7 9 4 0 7 8 2 l 1 6 3 0 1 7 7 0 4 l O 0 3 2 2 0 9 5 5 0 6 7 5 Continued 257 10 ll Item 17. Problems associated with travel 18. Extent politics of host country involved in affairs 19. Technical incompetence of nationals 20. Conflicts American vs. local values, customs 21. Local resistance based on traditions, beliefs 22. Inadequate supplies, equipment, materials 23. Lack of relevant refer- ence material 24. Inadequate data, statis- tics on situation 25. Physical working con- ditions 26. Working with interpret— ers and translators 27. Personality of counter- part 28. Competence of counter- part 29. On-the-job rapport with Americans 30. On—the—job rapport with nationals 31. Periods of inactivity on the job 32. Trying to work in another language 2 12 13 13 5 7 2 1 l 4 3 4 1 3 3 4 2 3 3 8 4 10 5 3 5 2 4 5 1 1 5 3 4 5 6 ‘/______________———— C ontinued Item 10 ll 12 13 33. Extent work and private life inter—related 34. Complexity of host organizations 35. Incidence of graft, bribery, etc. 36. Incompetence of Ameri— cans involved 37. Hazards to personal health involved 38.- "Favoritism" within American organizations 39. Lack of confidence in superiors 40. Turnover of personnel involved in work 41. Lack of administrative support 42. Desire "to do" rather than "to advise" 43. Inadequate sense of personal accomplish- ment 44. Not knowing what going on in American organi- zation 45. Not knowing what going on in national organi- zation 46. Vague sense of job security I 0 6 5 5 0 7 4 3 0 4 6 3 0 0 2 2 0 6 5 4 0 4 7 2 0 3 4 1 0 3 6 3 O 3 5 0 0 3 2 2 O 2 3 2 0 3 10 l 0 5 4 3 0 2 11 7 Continued 259 Item 012345678910111213 47. Inadequate sense of be- longing to something 4 0 0 1 6 0 1 6 1 0 0 2 7 5 48. Feeling of losing touch withprofession l 1 3 3 3 0 2 6 1 0 0 3 7 3 49. Friction and feuds with- inArnericanworkgroup3 13 210 0 810 0 2 10 2 50. Not knowing what I would doatendoftour 20055003200367 APPENDIX C Items Used in Elementary Linkage Analysis to Identify Typologies The list below consists of the interview questions, plus categories of responses, which were used in the elementary linkage analysis to identify typologies. Each of the 140 items is preceded by one or more Roman numerals or by a letter. A letter preceding an item indicates that this was a consensus item of one of the following three categories: A - ConSensus of frequent mentions, 20 to 30 mentions. B — Mid-range of frequency of mentions, 6 to 19. I C — Consensus of infrequent mentions, O to 5. Items preceded by one or more Roman numerals helped to dis— criminate among and identify the five typologies. The numerals indicate the type discriminated, as follows: I - discriminated Type I, positively or negatively. II - discriminated Type II, positively or negatively. III - discriminated Type III, positively or negatively. IV - discriminated Type IV, positively or negatively. V - discriminated Type V, positively or negatively. What did you consider important to learn? IV, V 1. Customs, culture, country, history. A 2. Professional situation. A 3. Procedures related to work. 260 ii“ IV 4. Relationships and people involved in work. C 5. Organization structure and decision-making. C 6. Personal behavior approaches. C 7. Language. C 8. Personal living arrangements, What for you were the productive ways of learning? B 9. Reading. I 10. ASking questions. V 11. Observations; surveys. A 12. On-the-job activity. C 13. Training and orientation. B 14. Through friends and social affairs. What did you find easy for you to learn? C 15. Everything C 16. Nothing V 17. People, customs; how to get to know and get along with them. III 18. Professional situation and relationships involved. C 19. Language. What was hard for you to learn? C 20. Everything. C 21. Nothing. C 22. People, customs; background of people; how to get to know them and get along with them. I 23. Professional situation and relationships involved, C 24. Language. B 70. Other. In terms of your expectations in entering on this tour, how would you say that things worked out for you. . . I 25. Better than expected (including about as) In your judgment what were the major problems of the host organization which were obstacles with respect to the work in which you were engaged. IV 26. Abilities and attitudes of people C 27. Lack of technical facilities, standards, and lack Of funds and other resources. . . B 28. Inadequate administrationvand organization. 261 B 29. A 30. I 31. C 139. A 32. B 33. V 39. B40. IV 42. B43. C 44. C 45. C 46. 262 What personal skills, competencies, priorexperiences, etc. did you bring to the situation that were most important in furthering the work? Previous work abroad. Professional or technical education or experience. Experience and interest in dealing with people. Language also mentioned. In what particular duties or activities related to your work did you feel most adequate? I In my principal technical, professional competency. Administration and organization; general human relations skills; teaching and training. . Language In what particular duties or activities related to your work did you feel most inadequate? None Technical and professional demands outside my field; dealing with technicians. Administrative problems and requirements; human relations skills, teaching and training. Language. What about your work frustrated you most? No frustrations. Americans in USOM and/or administrative problems and requirements of USOM. . Host national attitudes and competency; professional situation. How did you handle these frustrations? Changed myself. Changed situation. Accepted situation. Retreated from situation. Marked time. C 47. B48. B49. III 50. 151. III 52. V 53. B54. C 55. B 56. C 57. B61. B62. III 63. C 64. B65. B66. B67. C 68. C 69. . Not our business to do so. . Honesty, integrity, sincerity, tolerance. . Value of work and belief in program; action, efficiency, 263 How did you determine how well you were doing? Never knew. "Own judgment. " Acceptance by host nationals. Acceptance by Americans. As far as you were concerned professionally, what were the most challenging things about your work? Starting from "scratch"; work on basic problems. Working out approaches, teaching, training, helping people. Demonstrating American ways and concepts. What aspects of the culture made the job difficult or easy? Saw difficulties only. Saw favorable factors only. Saw both difficulties and favorable factors. Believed culture or customs not relevant. What aspects of American values, ways of doing things, etc. were you most concerned with introducing in or relating to your work and the host nationals associated with it? practicality, simplicity. Equality and freedom; worth of individual. Science and secular rationality; value of education. Technical and professional standards and criteria. What did you consider the toughest part of your work? Nothing. Relations with Americans, and administration of USOM. . Relations with nationals, and/or third country nationals. I Professional situation. Personal living situation. Language. i B 77. C 78. III 79. IV 80. C 81. C 85. B86. C 87. B88. -C 89. C 90. . Had some insight on decision-making. . Had some influence on decision process. . Mentioned some experience as a middleman. 264 What part of your work did you dislike to do? Nothing. Relations with Americans, and administration of USOM. . Relations with nationals and/or third country nationals. . Professional situation. i . Personal living situation. . Language. In relation to your work, what compromises in work objectives, level of technology, or standards of performance bothered you most? None. Compromises in moral, ethical values. Compromises in work-related and administrative values. Compromises in professional, technical criteria and performance. Inability of American organization to meet commitments or adjust to necessary standards. Estimate of extent respondent had insight on decision making. What influence, if any, did you have on the process by which decisions were made in the host organization? While working abroad in technical assistance, some Americans have reported that their role sometimes might best be described as being a middleman in a communication sense=~=that is, through them communications between various persons and offices in the host organization took place. What was your- experience? . In what ways were personal relationships important in your work? I l i I Not of any particular work-related importance. ‘ To build own credibility and acceptance with nationals. ) To enable you to know host nationals. : To establish mutual confidence, respect, rapport. . To facilitate analysis of situation, rate of progress, etc. I To make situation more pleasant and easy; to enhance image of and goodwill toward America. t V 91. I. 92. C 94. II 95. C 96. C 97. C 98. C 138. B 99. III 100. IV 101. III 102. I, III 103. I ,104. ,1105, 265 How did you go about finding out what the host nationals with whom you had frequent personal relationships were really like ? Never found out for sure. Impersonal approaches; read writings; queried others; observation. . Work related approaches: interview them formally or informally; travel together; work side by side; exchange opinions; review work accomplishments. ‘ Social approaches: visit in their home; entertain in my home; drink together; attend extra-curricular events together; play games and sports; give them gifts; enter into their way of life. Why did you believe it important to your work to have close relationships with nationals ? To establish rapport and teamwork as a way of working. Establish mutual confidence and respect as persons. Establish confidence and respect in respondent as a technical person. To get insight and advice on what to do and what is going on. Other. Were social affairs with host nationals useful in accomplish= ing your work ? Yes . Partly. How did you go about building your influence with nationals ? By working with them, meeting them in work situations and/or asking about problems. Accepting them as equals; showing interest in them personally, helping them enhance their position; doing things not called upon to do. Taking a business-like approach; demonstration of professional competenc e; frank discus sion. How much a part of the American organization did you feel? .Completely integrated. Only partly integrated . II 106. IV 106. IV 107. V 108. B 110. B111. C 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. H tIJO<1Uj III, IV 117. C 120. I,V 121. In comparison with your U. S. experiences, was your work life and your private life abroad inter-related to a greater or less extent, or about the same. Greater. Same or less. What formal or informal re-employment status did you have with the organization with which you affiliated immediately prior to going abroad? Some status. What would you say are your career goals, ambitions or aspirations ? Get into international work. . Have a job, progress, be paid satisfactorily. Get into administrative or management work in education, government. Teach and/or do research. Go into, or build business. With respect to the career goals and ambitions that you had at the time you went abroad with ICA, to what extent have these changed, if at all? Considerably changed. Changed some. Very few changes Remained essentially the same. To what extent would you say that your overall professional career has been influenced by your tour abroad with ICA? Greatly advanc ed. . Somewhat advanced. . Neither advanced nor retarded. Somewhat retarded. Have you experienced any kind of letdown since returning? Some letdown. 267 Do you feel that you have been disadvantaged in any way by the overseas tour? . No disadvantage . While you were overseas what if anything were you able to do to make your experience more useful or valuable in a job back in the U. S. . Nothing. If you were to go abroad again, what might you try to do to be able to make more use of the experience on a job after returning? B 124. Nothing. For what would you like host nationals to remember you? I, V 125. Personal and social qualities. A 126. Professional competencies and accomplishments. While abroad, what changes in the way you thought, felt, acted or lived did you resolve to retain after returning to the U. S. ? C 127. No change. V 128. Tolerance and patience; take broader view; be more adaptable, 130. 1319 132. mew 111133. V 133., etc. . Closer family ties; open display of affection; be warm, friendly person. More cosmopolitan. Appreciation for USA, American way of life, system of taxes. Other. As a result of the overseas experience, how have you changed your concepts of what you would like to do or be? Some change; No change. 268 In looking back over your overseas experience, what do you feel that you have really gotten out of this that has been worth-while for you? .I 134. Professional dividends. B 135. Personal dividends. V 136. World view dividends. B 137. United States view dividends. What was the quality of the relationships between adminis- trative and technical people in the USOM,? V 140. Good, or better. APPENDIX D Distribution of Demographic and Control Data Among Five Typologies Typologies Categories 1 II 111 IV v Total Age: 30-39 years 2 6 2 0 l 11 40-49 3 2 2 2 1 10 50—59 3 3 o 4 1 11 60 plus 0 0 O 2 0 2 Level of Education: No degree 1 l O 1 0 3 Bachelor's 1 2 0 3 3 9 Master's 2 6 2 2 0 12 Doctor's 4 2 2 2 0 10 Educational Orientation: ‘ Technical 5 6 0 4 2 17 Non—technical 3 5 4 4 1 17 Prior Overseas Service: Yes 3 0 2 0 12 No 5 4 4 6 3 22 Employment Prior to Tour: U. S. Government 2 4 0 4 1 11 Non-profit institution 4 5 4 3 0 16 Profit-making organization 1 2 0 1 2 6 I Enrolled in school 1 0 0 0 0 l 1 Employment, . Post-Tour l U. S. Government 4 3 0 6 1 l4 Non-profit institution 1 3 4 l 1 10 Profit—making organization ‘3 5 0 1 l 10 Marital Status: Married 7 11 4 8 1 31 Single 1 O O 0 2 3 Accompanied Abroad by Children: No 4 1 0 3 2 10 ( Yes 4 10 4 5 1 24 1 «I n nnhf‘lhnfld 111.1] fit -. er I-- .. .r a .. . ll... . . . . . .x. . .. . i I ...I I III. I1 II p .x...ihlh.r . k Mualma.b..n-.{-. Z70 Typologies Categories 1 11 111 IV V Total Number Countries Worked Previously: None 5 4 4 6 3 22 One 2 Z 0 2 0 6 Two 1 3 O 0 O 4 Four 0 1 0 O 0 1 Five 0 1 O O O 1 Area of World Stationed: EurOPe 0 0 o 0 1 1 Near East 1 Z 0 O O 3 South Asia 3 3 l 1 O 8 Far East 1 2, l 3 O 7 Latin America 3 Z 1 4 1 11 Africa 0 Z l O 1 3 Political Orientation of Countries: Authoritarian , Z 4 1 Z Z 11 Semi-=Competitive 3 4 1 3 1 12 Competitive 3 3 Z 3 O 1 1 City Stationed Abroad: Capitol 7 9 4 8 2 30 Other 1 2 O 0 1 4 Salary Grades Abroad: Grades 2 and 3 4 6 1 5 1 17 Grades 4 and 5 3 5 3 3 0 14 Grades 6 and 7 1 0 0 0 Z 3 Length of Tour Abroad: 9— 18 months 3 3 Z 1 Z 11 19—24 months 2 3 2 4 1 12 24—26 months 3 5 0 3 0 11 Where Officed Abroad: AInerican organization 5 7 3 3 0 18 Host organization 2 2 0 3 Z 9 Combination 1 0 0 2 0 3 Other 0 Z l 0 0 3 No office 0 0 O O 1 1 Length Time Back in U. So: Up to 18 months 0 3 1 1 1 6 19=24 months 2 3 0 3 0 8 Z 20 25==36 months 6 5 3 4 APPENDIX E Percentage of Respondents in Each Typology Mentioning Each Disc riminating Item Disc riminating Item 5* 25. 50. 31. 36. 38. 51. 52. 53. 26. >fiItems have been edited and rephrased to indicat EXPECTATION FULFILLMENT Things worked out better then expected WORK PERFORMANCE Used acceptance by Americans to determine how well doing Experience, interest in dealing with people most important per— sonal attribute brought to work Felt most inadequate in technical, professional demands outside immediate field Felt most inadequate in the local language Starting from scratch most chal- lenging aspect of work Working out ways of approaching, teaching, training, helping people most challenging aspects of work Demonstrating American ways and concepts most challenging aspects of work Abilities, attitudes of nationals the major problems of host organi— zation with respect to work of the comment. 271 Percentage of Re spondents I II III IV V (N=8) (N=11) (N=4) (N=8) (N23) 100 25 62 87 12 85 45 27 72 72 72 54 27 63 5O 75 100 25 25 50 100 75 50 100 12 62 12 25 12 33 33 33 33 100 66 e readily the direction Continued 272 Percentage of Respondents Discriminating Items 1 II III IV V (N=8) (N=ll) (N=4) (N=8) (N=3) 39. No frustrations 25 72 25 75 0 41. Frustrated most by nationals' attitudes and competency 25 9 50 12 100 42. Handled frustrations by changing myself 87 63 50 12 33 72. Disliked relations with Ameriu cans and USOM 25 54 75 25 0 79. Bothered by compromises in worknrelated and administrative values 50 18 100 25 O 80. Bothered by compromises in pro— fessional, technical criteria and performance 50 45 25 75 66 63. Most concerned with introducing American technical and profess sional standards and criteria 37 45 75 37 33 60. Most concerned with introducing American values of work; action, efficiency, practicality 12 27 0 25 66 INTERACTION AND INFLUENCE 83. Had some influence on process by which decisions made in host organization 100 36 50 37 0 101 Built influence with nationals by working with them, and asking about problems 25 45 50 75 0 102. Built influence with nationals by accepting them as equals 0 45 75 12 0 103. Built influence with nationals by taking a business-like approach 100 27 0 37 100 95. Close relationships with nationals important to work to establish 81 0 37 0 rapport and teamwork 25 Continued Pe rc entage of Respondents Disc riminating Items I II III IV V (N=8) (N=11)(N=4) (N=8) (N=3) 100. Social affairs partly useful in accomplishing work 12 18 74 2,5 0 92. Used impersonal approaches to find out what nationals were really like 75 36 25 25 0 91. Never found out for sure what nationals were really like 25 9 25 37 100 125. Would like nationals to remember me for personal and social quali- ties 25 63 75 50 100 106. Private life and work life abroad inter-related to greater extent than in U. S. 62 90 50 25 33 104. Felt completely integrated in American organization 12 63 50 75 33 105. Felt only partly integrated in American organization 75 27 25 12 66 140. Quality of relationships between administrative and technical people in USOM was good or better 25 45 0 37 66 LEARNING 1. Important to learn customs and culture 62 54 75 25 0 4. Important to learn relationships and people involved in the work 37 63 75 12 33 10. Asking questions a productive way to learn 62 90 100 87 33 11. Observations and surveys a pro- ductive way to learn 50 63 75 75 0 18. Professional situation, relation- 9 75 25 0 ships easy to learn C ontinued 274 Disc riminating Item 5 Percentage of Respondents I II III IV V (N=8) (N=11) (N=4) (N=8) (N: 3) 23. Professional situation, relation— ships difficult to learn 100 17. Easy to learn about people and customs 50 POST-TOUR REACTIONS 109. Career goal to have a job, progress, be paid 12 108. Career goal to get into inter— national work 37 107. No resemployment status with employer prior to going abroad 62 114. Career goals changed some since going abroad 12 117. Professional career greatly advanced by going abroad 37 133. No change in concepts of what I would like to do or be resulting from experience 50 121. Did not experience letdown in returning to stateside work 25 123. While overseas did not do any- thing to make the experience more useful in U. 5. job 25 128. While overseas resolved to re— tain attitudes of tolerance and patience after returning 50 134. Professional dividends most worth—while 75 136. World view dividends most 75 worthwwhile 18 27 27 45 72 36 45 81 63 72 81 75 50 75 75 50 50 25 25 50 25 37 62 25 50 37 50 75 37 25 75 100 100 66 66 66 100 66 66 ROOM USE ONLY ARM " 34g 1 JUL—“fir“ as AUG 13 2954 9,1 21113