The Foreign Service Journal, May 2013

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MAY 2013 23 new global reality that con- fronts organizations that operate internationally, in both their external and domestic environments. I have described this in greater detail in my book, Diversity and U.S. Foreign Policy ( Routledge, 2004). It is a fact that the world is becoming more black, brown and yellow, while birth rates in Europe are stalling. This increasing global diversity does not simply imply a quantitative change; it makes for a qualitative one, as well. Of course, the world has always been diverse, in terms of the profusion of ethnicities and well-developed cultures around the globe. But we in the developed world didn’t always have to pay attention to that. As one of my college teachers, Karl Deutsch, used to say, “Power is the capacity not to have to learn.” Now, we do have to listen to non-Western countries, for their power is increasing. The growing global leverage of rising powers like India and, most importantly, China—non-Western countries that do not adhere to a Eurocentric value system—is an important reason to listen carefully. We are also seeing the rise of state and non-state actors from the global South—some benign, some not. All these changes alter how America must repond to the world Domestic diversity , the other side of the coin, is easily seen in the emerging reality that the United States of America is rapidly becoming a majority-minority country. These changes, too, require that our leadership calculate the national interest in new, more inclusive ways. By itself, “diversity” is simply a factual condition, like “win- ter.” Depending on our response, it could be helpful, harmful or neutral. So the question for our leading institutions is: How will we respond to these two changing realities—greater diversity “out there” and greater diversity here at home? A Framework for Action Three scenarios come to mind. One: It will just be more of the same and won’t matter much. Two: A greater diversity of perspectives will motivate, inspire and render America more dynamic, innovative and productive. Three: Greater diversity will lead to increasing intergroup friction, social fragmentation, and cultural and political strain. The first scenario is improbable, if the still- reverberating political dynamics of last year’s presidential election are any indication. Of the other two, clearly the second is the preferred scenario. With that in mind, the State Depart- ment, USAID and the other foreign affairs agencies need to work harder not only to recruit a more diverse cadre, but to incorporate and engage these talented people who bring novel perspectives, if they are to be successful. Many firms in the private sector have already reached this conclusion, as has the military. They are working on finding a better balance between socializing new recruits into the traditional model of global engagement, and being socialized by the new recruits in the new competencies of 21st-century diplomacy. The key to this is what I call “cultural competence.” I define it as “the capacity to think, act and move easily across borders, whether national, cultural or institutional, to pursue one’s goals effectively.” Cultural competence requires having the appropriate skills, attitudes, knowledge and experience to operate effectively at the multiple intersections of global and national diversities. It also requires us to recognize there are different kinds of cultures and borders. First, there is “Culture” with a capital ‘C.’ This is the tra- ditional idea of global cultures in other nation-states (e.g., Chinese, Hindu or Yoruba). Also relevant are subnational culture(s) with a small ‘c’—the values and attitudes associated with different ethnic minorities. And then there is “institutional culture.” The State Department, for instance, has a very dif- ferent culture than the Defense Department; and universities have different cultures than corporations. Culturally competent people know how to navigate all three kinds of boundaries. And it is increasingly essential to both recruit for and train to develop this ability. Rethinking Recruitment It’s easy for me to prescribe new cultural, strategic and per- sonnel shifts, but I recognize how difficult they are to achieve. The cultural transformations I call for involve far-reaching changes, and they are especially difficult for institutions, such We need people with brand-new portfolios of talents, whose diverse perspectives can challenge and change for the better our traditional ways of thinking and acting.