Cultural neuroscience

Abstract

Organizations in every sector of the economy are facing unprecedented change due to a rapidly expanding marketplace, globalization, and increased global competition. They are realizing that, if they cannot adapt to the challenges of globalization, they will find themselves becoming increasingly irrelevant, unable to retain talent, and eventually disappear altogether.

Organizations today, more than ever before, require project managers who can lead effectively in cross-cultural environments. But to succeed in today's complex global economy, project managers must develop the ability to quickly, comfortably, and successfully adapt to new cultural contexts. Project managers must move beyond simple dos and don'ts of cultural diversity to a more sophisticated understanding and appreciation of cultural differences.

The aim of this paper is to provide an understanding of the key insights emerging from the latest research in cultural neuroscience on the influence of culture on thought, emotions, and behavior in the context of project work. The objective is to raise awareness about this body of research and how it can serve as an important component of leadership development of global project managers.

Introduction

Often underestimated in planning projects are the inherent collaboration challenges that cross-cultural teams face. The overhead in terms of time and efforts required for communication and collaboration has important implications on the effectiveness of globally dispersed teams. A number of studies show significant evidence that the cultural diversity of teams influences the time and effort required in communication and collaboration, which results in differences in team performance (Staples & Zhao 2006; Thomas 1999). Staples and Zhao (2006) found that teams comprised of members from diverse cultures experienced more conflict than culturally homogeneous teams, as culturally heterogeneous teams required more effort in communicating and collaborating in performing group tasks. Polzer et al. (2002) found that cultural diversity increased creative task performance, but team members were only able to perform well when they viewed other team members as similar to themselves.

Project managers play a crucial role here. A core skill that organizations are looking for in their project managers today is the capacity to lead and manage global change initiatives in a way that takes the human and social aspects into account and respects the people affected. The luxury of having a homogeneous group of people to work with is long gone. Too many change projects struggle, fall short, or completely fail because the technical and procedural aspects of the change initiative take the highest priority, while the human and cultural aspects are neglected and in some cases deliberately ignored. Project leaders must understand the behaviors, attitudes, and motivations of those involved in their global change initiative and how cultural difference amplifies the challenges of leading globally. When cultural differences become intolerable and create frustration, anger, and miscommunication, project leaders need to have the skills to bridge cultural incompatibilities.

This paper will briefly introduce the field of cultural neuroscience and places it in the broader field of neuroscience of leadership. It will then review key findings from cultural neuroscience relevant to leading multicultural teams. Finally, it will propose a framework, based on neuroscience insights, which can help project managers lead global collaboration and diagnose conflict in global change initiatives.

Cultural Neuroscience and Cultural Intelligence

At my last presentation at a PMI Global Congress, I asked attendees if they managed multicultural teams and, of those who do, how many have received cross-cultural training as preparation for their projects. I was surprised to see that of the 50 people in the audience, 95% managed multicultural teams but only one attendee stated they actually received cross-cultural training.

I also surveyed my LinkedIn network in multiple discussion groups: “If you manage multicultural project teams, have you received any cross-cultural training before you started managing such teams? If so, how effective was it and what made it effective? If not, in hindsight, what type of cross-cultural training would you have liked to receive or recommend for other project managers embarking on such projects?”

The response I receive is consistent and points to the same conclusion: that it is rare for project managers to receive cross-cultural training as part of their ongoing career development.

Even when they are provided training, what is available for project managers tends to be limited to the surface “table manners DOs and DON'Ts” country-specific cross-cultural training. Such cross-cultural training has historically been designed to help expatriate managers or those who deal primarily with one or a two cultures in their career. Given that project managers are dealing with multiple cultures on the same project, and often virtually, their challenges are different and more intense. Project managers need to quickly develop deep mutual trust, respect, and understanding with and among their culturally diverse project teams and stakeholders. On projects, sufficient time usually required to develop such rapport and trust relationships is a luxury that they rarely have. Therefore, project managers require a much deeper understanding of culture than mere awareness of surface cultural variations. To be effective, they need to develop a global mindset.

Effective cultural intelligence training enhances a project manager's sensitivity to cultural differences and reduces the reliance on simplistic cultural stereotypes. It helps develop an adaptive repertoire of culturally appropriate and sensitive behaviors.

Cultural Intelligence

Earley and Ang (2003) proposed a model that integrates findings from research on factors that promote effective intercultural interactions and collaboration and called it Cultural Intelligence (CQ). According to this model, CQ core dimensions are motivation (CQ Drive), cognition (CQ Knowledge), meta-cognition (CQ Strategy), and behavior (CQ Action).

Motivation is an individual's drive and motivation to develop their cultural intelligence to be effective in culturally diverse situations. In addition to the intrinsic motivation derived from enjoying the experience of cultural diverse situations, other drivers such as getting the opportunity to work on high visibility/high exposure global projects and getting the benefits of advancing one's career play an important role in motivating individuals to enhance their cultural intelligence.

Cognition is an individual's knowledge about what is universal and what is particular about different cultures. This knowledge includes an understanding of the different values, norms, and beliefs.

Metacognition is thinking about how one experiences culturally diverse situations or environments. In other words, it is thinking about thinking. CQ-Metacognition occurs through making sense of our own though process and that of culturally different others. It involves awareness about one's current cultural knowledge, planning for culturally diverse interactions, and being aware of assumptions and adapting mental maps as we evaluate our cultural knowledge compared to what are experiencing.

Behavior is a person's behavioral flexibility to adapt to various culturally diverse situations. Flexibility in verbal and nonverbal behavior to adapt to what is culturally appropriate in different requires an integration of all other CQ components. This involves summoning CQ-Cognition, CQ-Metacognition, and CQ-Motivation to develop a flexible repertoire of responses that are appropriate in a variety of culturally diverse situations.

Thomas and his colleagues (1999) proposed cultural metacognition to be the most important component of CQ that connects the other components as it regulates both cognition and behavior. Recent research with executives has found that higher cultural metacognition is linked with emotional (affective) closeness and creative collaboration in intercultural interactions (Chua, Morris, & Mor, 2012).

As we will see in the next sections, cultural neuroscience provides a strong foundation for developing CQ-Cognition by providing evidence-based knowledge about cultural variations and CQ-Metacognition through an understanding of the neural basis for the social and emotional drivers of behavior in the context of team work and collaboration.

The emergence of Cultural Neuroscience

Neuroscience is the interdisciplinary science of the nervous system that collaborates with other fields such as chemistry, computer science, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, medicine, philosophy, physics, and psychology. The field has seen significant advances in recent years, which can be largely attributed to very recent scientific and technological advances, particularly functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, which allows researchers to literally watch the brain in action.

The term “Cultural Neuroscience” refers to the growing body of research in cognitive and social neuroscience demonstrating the substantial degree to which culture influences how the brain processes information. This research is providing a fresh perspective on how cultural values, beliefs, practices, and experience deeply influence neural processes underlying a wide range of human behavior from perception, emotion, to social cognition. These neural processes in turn shape how we make decisions, solve problems, and collaborate with others in cross-cultural projects.

Cultural neuroscience provides a new approach for understanding the impact of culture on the human brain (and vice versa) and opens new avenues for project leaders to learn how to improve their cultural intelligence and capabilities to manage conflict in global change initiatives.

What is Cultural Neuroscience?

The term “Cultural Neuroscience” was initially coined by Chiao and Ambady (2007, p. 238) who defined the field as an “interdisciplinary field bridging cultural psychology, neurosciences and neurogenetics that explains how the neurobiological processes, such as genetic expression and brain function, give rise to cultural values, practices and beliefs as well as how culture shapes neurobiological processes.” Cultural neuroscience integrates research from cultural psychology on cognition, emotions, and motivation and insights from neuroscience on how the brain is shaped by experience.

There is clear evidence from neuroscience research that sustained experience changes the structure and function of the brain. It takes London taxi drivers on average two years to complete the elaborate training to navigate all around London before obtaining their license. Maguire et al. (2000) found that the volume of the hippocampus, a brain region responsible for memory, was larger in volume in London taxi drivers. Additionally, the volume of the hippocampus was positively correlated with the number of years of experience a taxi driver has accumulated. Another example of a study investigating how experience shapes the brain was conducted by Draganski et al. (2004). The study found that volunteers who learned to juggle showed an increase in the volume of brain areas associated with processing and storing complex visual motion. Changes in the brain as a result of experience can also be observed in people who learned a second language (Mechelli et al., 2004). The left inferior parietal cortex is larger in bilingual brains than in monolingual brains.

Taken together, this research suggests that experience shapes the structure of the brain. So much progress has been made in the last few years in cultural neuroscience on how the culture shapes thoughts, emotions, and behavior. Exhibit 1 below shows few examples of this growing body research.

Exhibit 1 – Cultural neuroscience research examples

Since there is clear evidence that experiences affect the neural structure of the brain, it is only logical then to conclude that sustained exposure to a set of cultural experiences will shape the neural structure and function of the brain.

Findings from Cultural Neuroscience

Not only does culture affect how we behave, it also shapes how we see and interpret the world. Research from cultural neuroscience shows the brain-basis for cultural differences in both low-level cognitive processes such as perception, number representation, and higher-level processes such as understanding others's emotions and thinking about the self. The following is an overview of some of the key findings drawn from several studies in cultural neuroscience.

Perception

Research in cultural neuroscience is revealing that how we perceive things in our environment is not universal. Recent neuroimaging research is presenting evidence of differences in perception processing between westerners (Europeran and American) and East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean). Westerners seem to be inclined to pay more attention to salient objects (in an analytical, context-free manner), whereas East Asians tend to focus more on contexts, relationships, and backgrounds (Chua, Boland, & Nisbett, 2005; Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005).

Gutchess, Welsh, Boduroglu, and Park (2006) found a similar pattern when they compared the brain activation of East Asian Americans and non-Asian Americans as they observed complex images involving an object against a background. Both groups performed equally well in recognizing the objects. However, each group showed a distinct brain activation patterns. While Asian Americans showed more activation in the object-processing areas in the ventral visual cortex than did the non-Asian Americans, non-Asian Americans showed more activation in the areas associated with structural, perceptual analyses.

Numerical Processing

The impact of culture on the brain was also observed in how individuals of different cultures process numerical information. Tang et al. (2006) observed brain activation as native English speakers and native Chinese speakers performed numerical tasks involving Arabic numerals and non-numerical tasks. Native English speakers showed more activation is areas of the brain recruited in language processing while native Chinese speakers showed more activity in brain areas asscociated with visual-spatial processing.

Recognizing Emotions and Inferring Intentions in Others

The effect of culture on brain activation was also studied in how individuals of different cultures recognize others' emotions and infer others' intentions. Chiao et al. (2008) found distinct brain activation of native Japanese participants in Japan and Caucasian participants in the United States as they responded to various emotional expressions. Individuals from both cultures showed greater amygdala activation in response to faces expressing fear from members of their own cultural groups.

Another area of interest to cultural neuroscience is how empathy is influenced by culture. People seem to be better at correctly identifying the emotions of members of their own groups versus other groups (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002; Markham & Wang, 1996). Adams et al. (2009) used an fMRI modified version of the “Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test” in which he presented native Japanese and white Americans participants with pictures of just the eyes of people and asked them to judge what the person in the picture is thinking or feeling. The pictures presented to the participants were of Asian and Caucasian people. The objective is to observe brain activation as participants infer the mental state of people in the images. Native Japanese participants showed more activation in the superior temporal sulcus (STS), an area associated inferences of intentions, when they were judging the intentions of Japanese as compared to American targets from pictures of their eyes. Americans participants showed the opposite pattern, with more STS activation when judging intentions from Caucasian as compared to Japanese eyes.

In reviewing these few findings from cultural neuroscience, on the influence of culture on the brain and vice versa, we only scratched the surface of this growing and fascinating body of knowledge being developed in neuroscience labs around the globe. In just few years since its inception, this exciting field has the promise and potential of making a powerful impact on our understanding of culture and the brain in the context of leading people and change globally.

Through cultural neuroscience, we can deepen our understanding of how human beings from diverse cultural backgrounds respond to change, and how project managers can utilize this information to their advantage in change leadership. It provides a framework through which we can scan our cultural environment and proactively identify barriers to collaboration and resistance to change.

However, it is important to remember that this is a young field and so much work still remains to be done to bring this type of research to the field of leadership and organizational change. Specifically, cultural neuroscience as a new field has not developed a framework for understanding and managing the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in global change initiatives.

SCARF: A Framework for Understanding Conflict in Global Projects

An alternative framework that can help project managers understand the social dynamics of leading globally, from a neuroscience perspective, is the SCARF Framework (Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness). We will review this model in this section and offer suggestions on how project managers can use it as a diagnosis tool for understanding conflict in global collaboration.

Before we explore the five social domains of SCARF, it is important to explore few key foundational concepts that inform how our understanding the social, cognitive, and affective neuroscience helps us develop a global mindset.

Foundational Neuroscience Principles

In this section, we explore five important findings, from neuroscience research, that are central to understanding the brain's response to change when leading global teams and change initiatives.

Neuroplasticity is possible

The first and most important insight is that neuroplasticity is possible (Holzel et al., 2011). Until recently, it was thought that the human brain is a rigid system with no ability for renewal. We now know that the brain is capable of generating new cells and new connections between cells throughout adulthood. This means that we are capable of change. Our brain has been designed to make change possible and this capacity to may have been responsible for our survival as a species (McClung and Nestler, 2008). This ability to change has served us well as a species as it allows us to modify brain biology and brain functioning so as to operate effectively and successfully within our social world.

This capacity to change and adapt to our environment is a message of hope. It settles the age-old argument on whether leaders are made or born. This insight should give project managers confidence that, with discipline, focus and practice, they can develop any needed skills and especially those required to navigate the complex cultural terrains of global projects. The capacity to learn new things and change our brain's biology means that we can develop required skills to be successful in handling increasingly complex and challenging problems and decisions. In other words, we can develop new skills that serve us well and get rid of those that don't.

Brain's organizing principle: “minimize danger/maximize reward”

There are a number of studies to support the principle that the brain operates on the principle of minimizing danger and maximizing reward. Our brain has been trained over millions of years of evolution to respond automatically and often unconsciously to stimuli while operating under stressful conditions (Elliot, 2006; Schneirla, 1959). This principle suggests that, from moment to moment, our brain is scanning our physical and social environments for cues of danger and reward (Gordon, 2000). When we look at this organizing principle from an evolutionary perspective, it is obvious that this principle has ensured our species' survival and adaptation to hostile environments through millions of years.

Leading change can elicit strong responses when the change is perceived as a threat. This is often referred to as resistance to change. Knowing that these responses are natural allows us to be more patient and compassionate as we facilitate for others the process of grappling with the change. Perhaps the change is occurring too soon or is too much, or the manner or sequence of the undertaking needs fine-tuning. In other words, resistance to change can be valuable feedback to improve our change content, process, or context. Resistance can become critical input to improving the performance of the project manager as a change leader.

X-System vs. C-System

To navigate the complex landscape of our social environment and support the brain's principle of minimizing danger and maximizing reward, our brain relies on the integration of two types of systems or networks of brain structures: one is fast and reflexive (X-system) and the other is slow and reflective (C-system) (Lieberman, 2003). The fast limbic system is characterized by quick reactions when time and safety are of essence. It responds rapidly to stimuli with flight, fight, or fear. The slow system depends on the deliberate, high, cognitive functions of the pre-frontal cortex and its ability to exert top-down control. Each system depends on a network of brain structures and a set of neurobiological responses using hormonal and neurotransmitter reactions to move us either towards rewards or away from threats.

As we navigate the complex cultural environment of global projects, we need the reflective C-system to examine threats we experience and is experienced by those we are leading and determine if the threats are real or perceived. We also need this system to remember and focus on our long term goals, when we are distracted by short term rewards. On the other hand, we need the reflexive X-system to respond to danger in our environment. Mindfulness and cultural intelligence enable us to be aware of which system is operating moment to moment.

Learning about the C-system and the X-system helps project managers understand how the brain reacts under stress, in conflict situations, and when time is of essence, regardless of whether this sense of urgency is real or perceived. This especially applies when the project team is under pressure to meet aggressive schedule deadlines. Conflict can emerge due to team members operating with an overly hyperactive and hyper-vigilant X-system. Team members can react in ways that do not bring them closer to the team's goals. This challenge is only exacerbated by the dynamics of cross-cultural differences.

Arousal impacts cognition

Yale professor, Dr. Amy Arnsten, compares the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) to the character Goldilocks (Arnsten, 2009). It needs to have everything just right in its environment in order to function optimally. Dr. Arnsten uses the concept of the classic inverted-U to show the relationship between performance and arousal.

Being aroused to a certain level is important for performance so we can be motivated and interested in succeeding. The point of peak performance is the highest point on the inverted-U. This is the optimum point where we are operating in the “zone” of peak performance.

When we are involved in stressful situations, we rely on the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) for understanding, decision-making, recalling, memorizing, and inhibiting unwanted responses. Optimum conditions for effective decision-making and problem solving requires that our brain's higher cognitive processes are activated and in control.

Being aware of the impact of arousal on performance can help project managers to regularly monitor their physical sensations for signs of stress and adjust their emotional states to stay calm. It helps them think more clearly under pressure and be more confident in their ability to handle various challenging situations on their projects.

Brain regions important for survival needs and social needs overlap

The way our brain responds to social rewards and threats is similar to how it responds to physical rewards and threats that are necessary for our survival (Lieberman and Eisenberger, 2008). This suggests that social pain is just as important and traumatic to the brain as physical pain. The implications are important for change leaders. It should not be surprising then to discover that change can disrupt or threaten our sense of safety that can trigger strong emotional responses.

Research on Cultural Dimensions

Research studies on cross-cultural management investigate the effect of culture on organizations and how organizations can develop cultural competencies for effective cross-cultural interpersonal encounters. Three of the leading findings from this body of research are Hofstede's five cultural dimensions, Trompenaars' five elements of culture, and Hall's high and low context cultures.

The most widely known research on the subject of variation of values across national cultures is of Geert Hofstede's work on “cultural dimensions” (based on Hofstede 2011). Hofstede identified five distinct cultural dimensions that served to distinguish one culture from another. Power distance is the extent to which a culture expects and accepts a difference in levels of power among its members where some individuals have a higher level of power than others. Uncertainty avoidance reflects the extent to which a culture is comfortable with uncertainty and risk. Individualism vs. collectivism is the degree to which individuals are expected to look after themselves, or act predominantly as a member of the group or organization. Long vs. short term orientation is when a society's “time horizon,” or the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. Masculinity vs. femininity indicates the degree to which a culture values such behaviors as assertiveness, achievement, acquisition of wealth or caring for others, social supports, and the quality of life.

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993) identified five dimensions, arranged in a continuum. Universalism vs. Particularism is about the extent to which the relations of people of a group are governed with rules and regulations. Individualism vs. Communitarianism is the same as Hofstede's Individualism-Collectivism. Affective vs. Neutral cultures is about how individuals deal with and display emotions. Achievement vs. Ascription is about how different levels of status are given to individuals. In an ascriptive culture, status is attributed to individuals according to factors like age, class, gender, or education. Achievement oriented cultures accord status according to individual's accomplishment. Diffuse vs. Specific is about how separate individuals in a culture keep their private and working lives.

Hall's contribution to cross-cultural research is Context Theory and Time Theory. In high context cultures one has to consider the context of the message (e.g., non-verbal language, personal background) to understand the message. In low context cultures, communication is more explicit and less dependent on the context (Hall, 1976, p. 30).

Hall's time theory divides cultures into Sequential/Monochromic and Synchronic/Polychromic. In sequential or monochromic cultures, time is experienced and used in a linear way. In synchronic or polychromic cultures, time is viewed and experienced as the simultaneous occurrence of many things.

SCARF Framework

The SCARF framework can help project managers understand the unique dynamics of conflict in global projects. It was developed by the Neuroscience of Leadership community and Dr. Rock (Rock, 2008). Its main advantage is that it is situational and does not depend on or reflect on an individual's personality or behavior profile.

According to the framework, five universal domains of social experience are treated by our brain in the same way as primary survival issues, triggering either toward or away responses. These are the five social domains: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness. While there are differences in how these domains are perceived by individuals from different cultures, the framework provides a baseline for understanding how the brain responds during conflicts to threats to these five core social domains.

In this section, we examine how SCARF can serve as a framework for understanding conflict on global projects, as well as a diagnostic tool for troubleshooting conflict and developing appropriate interventions to manage it.

Status

Status has been shown to be critical for general health and survival (Adams and White, 2004; Marmot, 2004, 2005; Sapolsky, 2005). Status is about an individual's sense of importance in the social pecking order. Whether it is about experience, seniority, or expertise, our brain constantly monitors and compares our status relative to others. It sends a signal of threat or reward to us based on its assessment of changes in our ranking. A perceived increase in status triggers a reward response, whereas a perceived decrease in status triggers a threat response.

Signs that resistance to change is triggered by threat to status generally manifest themselves as conversations around accountability, ownership, and roles and responsibilities. Often people will voice concerns about not being included in decision making and planning, or complain about not being consulted about specific subject matter that falls within their domain of responsibility. Project managers need to listen to these conversations for clues as to how to counterbalance a threat to status.

With this understanding, global change leaders need to minimize threat to status. For example, a new information technology system installed company-wide can change the social structure of a department or an entire division. During the change planning phase, change leaders need to understand how their change initiative will impact status at each level of the organization. They need to ensure that people have a way to preserve or improve their current status for which they have worked so hard. In other words, it should be easy for people to know how to continue to succeed in the new order. This will put peoples' minds at rest and enable them to perhaps be less resistant to the change overall.

Certainty

Certainty is about the extent to which a person can predict the future. The brain likes to predict outcomes. Uncertainty is associated with increased activation in threat regions while certainty is associated with increased activation in reward regions (Hsu et al., 2005).

When it comes to change, certainty is about the change recipient's confidence regarding the future: it's about knowing what's going to happen next. The question is do the change recipients trust the process being followed? Do they trust that the change agent will take care of them? We may design a change initiative that appears to be complete from our perspective. However, the change recipient may worry about the change not having the right scope, sequence, or pace. When change leaders engage the change recipients, they can assess their readiness for change. When change recipients trust change leaders, they will have a lot less anxiety surrounding unexpected changes.

Signs that conflict is triggered by threat to certainty generally manifest themselves as conversations about confusion and a general lack of information about the plan, the direction, or even the vision behind the change initiative. Resistance triggered by uncertainty will generate requests for detailed reporting and establishment of overly structured oversight and governance processes. This can prolong testing and validation phases of a project and can lead to extensive approval and acceptance processes for deliverables. All these negative consequences can impact a project's timeline and budget and can ultimately undermine its success.

Autonomy

Autonomy is about choice. It is about the perception of exerting personal influence and control over our environment. Studies show that people prefer to have control over situations (Leotti and Delgado, 2011) and that feeling in control is very important to us (Leotti, Iyengar, and Ochsner, 2010). The perception of being able to control the course of events, exercise choice, and drive decisions all leads to an increased sense of autonomy. On the other hand, a lack of control over our working environment and the inability to influence outcomes generates a threat response.

For change initiatives, autonomy is about how a change will impact the recipient's sense of independence and freedom, and his or her ability to control certain aspects of events or the environment. The question on the minds of the change leaders is how a change will impact people's sense of autonomy and how they can create a perception of autonomy. Often, it's not necessary for people to feel that they have actual autonomy, but they do need to perceive that they have some control over the change. Change leaders can offer the recipient a sense of control over aspects of the change such as the pace, sequence, or scope.

Signs of conflict triggered by a threat to autonomy show up as conversations around a lack of resources and the burdens that the change initiative brings about to the impacted parties. Another sign is concern about potential change in roles and responsibilities (turf) that may be brought about by the change initiative. Yet another sign is when people withhold knowledge or resources needed by the project. This again can lead to schedule delays and budget overruns.

Relatedness

Relatedness refers to an individual's perceived sense of belonging, and how that person determines whether someone is in their in- group or out-group (i.e., friend or foe). The human brain is good at distinguishing between in-group and out-group (Mitchell et al., 2006). We want to be part of a team, group, or even tribe. Quality social connections support trust and collaboration. When people are able to relate to one another—;striving toward the same goals, being on the same page—;trust can develop, setting a foundation for a collaborative, inclusive, and safe environment.

In change initiatives, relatedness refers to how a change recipient will be connected or disconnected from a social group (team, department, division) in which they have built relationships and loyalties. Change can destabilize environments and can move an individual to another group, where he or she is considered part of an out-group.

Signs that conflict is triggered by threat to relatedness generally manifest themselves as conversations around change in existing relationships, teams, and reporting structures. When change forces people to have to move to new teams, or when they have to lose team members, conversations will reflect a fear of loss of a sense of community and the anxiety about having to refashion new loyalties. Another sign is concern about culture changing too fast and or not in a positive way.

Fairness

Fairness is equally important to the brain. An exchange that the brain perceives as unfair triggers primary threat and reward mechanisms. Fair offers activate reward regions such as the ventral striatum (Tabibnia et al., 2008). An exchange that the brain perceives as unfair triggers primary threat mechanisms. Unfair offers activate the insula, the “disgust” region (Sanfey et al., 2003).

Change can introduce additional workloads without adding the necessary tools and resources needed to meet the new demands. A classic example is the case of unfunded and/or underfunded initiatives. When resources, budgets, and schedules are cut, the change recipient will often perceive that the first things to get sacrificed are the essentials. The first component of a change initiative that often gets cut is training and testing. This undermines the change recipient's ability to prepare for a change. This is a classic case of a change recipient being given more responsibilities but without the authority to make any decisions.

Signs of conflict triggered by threats to sense of fairness generally manifest themselves as conversations around the change bringing about more responsibility without a corresponding adequate level of authority. Another sign is concern that the change adds more responsibilities without adequate changes to resource allocation.

While leading global projects, it may be impossible to avoid triggering a threat to one or more domains of SCARF. While we may not be able to completely eliminate danger or maximize reward, it is possible to offset threats to some domains by increasing rewards to others. We may not, for example, be able to avoid lay-offs, but at least we can advise those impacted of what's going to happen next. Perhaps, we don't know who exactly will be impacted by the lay-offs, but we can at least give everyone a sense of certainty by letting them know when new information will be available.

Exhibit 2 describes thirteen sources of conflict in a project, as shown in the left-hand column of the table (Cheung and Chuah, 1999). The middle column shows the cultural dimensions which may implicated in the conflict (Lieshout & Steurenthaler, 2006). The right-hand column shows the SCARF domains that may be threatened as a result of the conflict. This illustrates how, combined with foundational knowledge of neuroscience and cultural dimensions, the SCARF framework can serve as a powerful diagnosis tool to decode the cultural nuances of conflict and resistance to change on multicultural projects.

Exhibit 2: Sources of project conflict (source: left and middle columns: Lieshout & Steurenthaler, 2006).

Conclusions

It is common knowledge that we are a product of our environment. The age-old “nature vs. nurture” dichotomy can now be seen in a new light. We now know from the cultural neuroscience research just how deeply culture influences our thoughts, emotions, and behavior. This growing body of knowledge is making the impact of culture more explicit and tangible.

In the absence of proper cross-cultural training, project managers are left to lead and manage by stereotypes. For all the investments organizations make to expand globally, underestimating the critical importance of cross-cultural training for project managers presents one of the biggest risks to any global strategy.

Cultural intelligence and cultural neuroscience research is enhancing our understanding of the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration. With this knowledge, we can improve our leadership capabilities and effectiveness in leading our teams and organizations in an increasingly globally competitive business environment.