Trigger Events in InterCultural Sensemaking

Joyce Osland

San Jose State Unviersity

Allan Bird

University of Missouri-St. Louis

Allison Gundersen

Case Western Reserve University

Abstract

In a global economy intercultural adaptability is an important skill for anyone working across cultures. We adopt a social cognitive approach to explain trigger events –occasions that lead people to notice cultural differences – which in turn generate opportunities for intercultural sensemaking. Because the trigger event construct has received little attention and scant empirical study since its conception, we performed a multidisciplinary review of trigger event definitions, resulting in an explicated list of characteristics. In a process model, we delineate four moderators of the arousal-attention dynamic as well as threshold moderators of situational characteristics that may constitute triggers leading to intercultural sensemaking. We position trigger events within the larger context of intercultural adaptation and effectiveness.

Trigger Events in InterCultural Sensemaking

The range of what we think and do

Is limited by what we fail to notice.

And because we fail to notice

That we fail to notice,

There is little we can do

To change

Until we notice

How failing to notice

Shapes our thoughts and deeds.

- R.D. Laing

An American was on a short-term assignment in Germany, a country with which he had little personal experience. As he rode the bus or walked through the streets, he was surprised that people ignored the nods and smiles he sent in their direction. Although he didn’t take their reaction personally, he was both puzzled and uncomfortable by this unexpected behavior. He drew on previous experiences in Japanese culture where people sometimes avoid meeting strangers, thereby avoiding the incurrence of more obligations, but this felt very different. After a while, he asked a trusted German friend to explain the lack of greeting behavior. Since the German had no quick explanation, the American began to quiz him, trying to figure out in what specific situations Germans interact in this manner. He developed a working hypothesis about the development of intimacy in German culture, which he tested out with his German subordinates. Over time, the American also began to see a pattern in other behavioral contexts – for example, the relations between those with authority and those without and the way junior colleagues adjusted their behavior when speaking with senior colleagues. Eventually he saw the lack of greetings to strangers on the street as part of a larger cultural pattern of social distance. Once he understood the pattern, he stopped nodding and smiling, stopped expecting this behavior from others, and ceased to reflect on it.

What prompted the American to pause and try to figure out the German behavior he observed? The absence of expected behavior served as a trigger event that initiated a period of focused cultural sensemaking. Recent research into the intercultural adaptability of expatriates has taken a social cognitive approach, focusing specifically on the processes by which managers make sense of culturally different behaviors (Osland & Bird, 2000). However, as Starbuck and Milliken (1988) insightfully point out, “If events are noticed, people make sense of them and if events are not noticed, they are not available for sensemaking” (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988: 60). Our current investigation focuses on “trigger” events in understanding what factors and conditions evoke intercultural sensemaking behaviors and cognitions in intercultural settings.

Within the realm of managerial research, the trigger concept has remained largely unaddressed since Louis (1980) and Louis and Sutton’s (1991) seminal work on surprise and sensemaking. Consequently, few organizational scholars have empirically examined the concept or elaborated upon it conceptually. One exception is Maitlis and Lawrence’s (2008) study of conditions that trigger sensegiving in organizations. While some research on intercultural competence has focused more extensively on conditions that prompt mindfulness (cf., Berger & Douglas, 1982; Ting-Toomey, 1999) and the processes surrounding unexpected behavior and their outcomes for people in intercultural interactions (cf., Storti, 1990), it, too, has left the nature of trigger events largely unexplored. Therefore, this topic is important for both theoretical and practical reasons. First, a multidisciplinary review and synthesis of prior work may lead to a clearer conceptualization of trigger events and elaborate multiple facets of the phenomenon. Second, a more thorough understanding of the role of trigger events that incorporates cognitive considerations in intercultural sensemaking and a delineation of the process could contribute to intercultural training and coaching. Accurate cultural sensemaking is an essential element of effective global leadership (Osland, Bird, Osland, & Oddou, 2007).

In the next section, we review and synthesize the definitions and treatment of trigger events in various disciplines that utilize this concept. This is followed by an explanation of sensemaking and its distinctive characteristics within the intercultural context. We present a process model of trigger events in intercultural sensemaking and conclude with implications for future research and practice.

Understanding Trigger Events

In an organizational context, a trigger event has been defined as an interruption in a cognitive flow(Weick, 1995); however, many disciplines – e.g., chemistry, computer science, operations research, psychology, education, and so forth -- have developed their own definitions of trigger events. For example, in chemistry, a trigger event is characterized by a chemical reaction or phase transition, whereas in education it is defined as a “disorienting dilemma”;in intercultural communication, it is a “culture bump” that indicates unexpected behavior and in computer science, it is a set of rules that identify exceptionality. A multidisciplinary literature review led to the exploration and synthesis of the varied definitions and applications, resulting in the following explication of various trigger event characteristics.

Trigger events deviate from expectations. Louis (1980) identified one category of trigger events, describing them as surprises or discrepancies from expected or deliberate initiatives to pay attention because one does not know what to expect (Louis & Sutton, 1991). Archer (1986), for example, coined the term “culture bump” to refer to a cultural difference that causes a disruption in thinking or behavior flow, which is grounded in expectations stemming from the normal situational behavior learned within one’s own culture.

Trigger events are disruptions to a stable state that lead to a new state. Trigger events are described as perturbations that are responsible for moving a system from an initial state to a final goal state (Senglaub, 2001). For instance, an automated military training program that models commander’s intent[1]uses trigger events to move a system from a starting condition through a series of intermediate states to a final goal state (Senglaub, 2001).

Trigger events prompt changes in direction or trajectory. In artificial intelligence, computer science,and engineering, trigger events are rules that identify exceptionality and signal that a change in function is needed. In a similar vein, decision making in operations research views trigger events as changes in environmental circumstances or as new information that activates further decisions and/or alterations in course (Joosten, 1994). For instance, expert schedulers use “'broken-leg' cues as a decision making trigger event, i.e., an event or information that alters the certainty of a standard determinant event” (McKay, Buzacott, Charness & Safayeni, 1992). On an organizational level, triggers events may lead to a change in strategic direction as a response to internal or external stimuli (Walsh & Ungson, 1991).

Trigger events initiate previously learned responses. Some trigger events are viewed simply as behavioral or emotional prompts of the stimulus-response variety. As used in social work (Humair & Ward, 1998; Parker & Randall, 1996), trigger events in operant conditioning, are formulated as situations that activate negative behaviors. For example,identifying triggers is often a fundamental component of smoking cessation and addiction programs. Once the trigger-response linkage is understood, the trigger can be eliminated or avoided, or the response behavior can be modified.

Trigger events can be multiple. Multiple triggers can occur within the same interactive affective and behavioral incident, especially as humans react and interact with others. For instance, Lewis argues that triggers in emotional sensemaking, what he calls“emotion appraisal,” can define the onset of an emotional episode, as well “as any point in an ongoing appraisal-emotion stream” (Lewis, 2004: 27). For example, in a merger, a female manager from the acquired firm was offended by a pushy male executive from the acquiring company. Her forceful response elicited more aggressive behavior on the executive’s part. The initial action and the subsequent responses that marked their escalating conflict and disintegrating relationship constituted multiple trigger events. Triggers, therefore, can modify the ongoing sensemaking, replacing it or extending it, based on the current context and state of the individual (Lewis, 2004).

Trigger events can be accumulative. Accumulative trigger events can take two forms. A persistent cue or signal may come to be seen as a disruption, as noted in research on problem detection (Billings, Milburn & Schaalman, 1980). For example, repeated complaints from the same supplier may eventually prompt corrective action. An accumulative trigger may also result from multiple disparate cues in aggregation (Cowan, 1986), such as the employee who ultimately realizes that he should start looking for a new job after observing a series of events: slow promotion decisions that were formerly automatic, buy-out rumors in the press, decreased stock prices, and a superstar employee who jumps ship.

Trigger events can be transformative, leading to deeper understanding and higher consciousness. In transformational learning, trigger events are called “disorienting dilemmas” that lead students to self-examination, to critically question their beliefs and assumptions and, eventually, to adopt a new perspective on their experience or the world, moving to a new paradigm (Cranton, 1994; Mezirow, 1991; 1997; 2000).

The common thread running through these many definitions and aspects is that a trigger event is an interruption in a previously stable state or coherent flow that initiates a response, leading to a new state. When trigger events involve cognition, that new state may involve sensemaking, learning and, possibly, transformation.

The Intercultural Context

Trigger events are inextricably linked to context. In the intercultural context, we view culture as a communal response to the need for simplification and uncertainty reduction. Different communities reach different answers to common questions;thus, when people from diverse cultures interact there is a large potential for misunderstanding, for gaps between the expected and the experienced (Bird & Osland, 2006).

Culture is a society’s way of addressing basic issues and questions such as what is the nature of the individual; what is the relationship of people to nature; how should relationships within a community be structured; how should time be viewed; and what is the purpose of activity (Brannen et al., 2004; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). The objective in answering these questions is to reduce uncertainty so that through shared understandings -- both tacit and explicit -- the community can function effectively.

Weick’s (1979) definition of organizing as a “consensually validated grammar for reducing equivocality through sensible interlocks” aptly applies to culture as well. By means of shared values, attitudes and beliefs, as well as norms, rituals and artifacts, cultures reduce the uncertainty surrounding human interaction within a society. Working within a community where there are shared understandings, individuals can develop expectations regarding how events will unfold, how people will behave and what behaviors are appropriate or efficacious. The cognitive element of culture acquisition is supplemented by a physiological element. Recent brain research has identified mirror neurons – neurons that fire both when a person acts and when a person observes actions performed by another -- that may serve as a vehicle for unconscious culture learning (Blakeslee, 2006). Culture also simplifies interpersonal interactions, thereby reducing the need for conscious cognitive effort. When individuals venture outside their cultural group, they are confronted with a substantial increase in uncertainty, which implies cognitive and emotional demands.

“It is the ambiguity of meaning that marks the boundaries of culture (Cohen, 1985: 55) – the boundary is where the ambiguity begins, where managers can no longer be sure of the correctness of their interpretation of what is going on” (Apfelthaler & Karmasin, 1998: 8). Intercultural communication researchers highlight the importance of anxiety and uncertainty reduction in intercultural relations. Although they arenot labeled as such, these two factors are described in the literature as both triggers and motivating factors for sensemaking. Two types of uncertainty are present in interactions with strangers (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). The first type refers to uncertainty about the strangers’ attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values, and behavior, which hampers the ability to predict their behavior. The second type of uncertainty concerns explanations for strangers’ behavior. “Whenever we try to figure out why strangers behaved the way they did, we are engaging in explanatory uncertainty reduction. The problem we are addressing is one of reducing the number of possible explanations for the stranger’s behavior to understand it and thus be able to increase our ability to predict their behavior in the future” (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997: 32-33). Because the ability to predict how people make decisions is especially useful in business, uncertainty about what strangers see as plausible goals and theappropriate actions to achieve them within a particular setting can trigger uncertainty reduction efforts.

Confronted with uncertainty, people who work with other cultures are trained to be mindful, which is closely related to attention and sensemaking. Mindful communication involves attending to one’s internal assumptions, cognitions, and emotions, and simultaneously attuning to the other’s assumptions, cognitions, and emotions (Ting-Toomey, 1999). It also means learning to see behavior or information in a situation as fresh or novel; viewing a situation from several perspectives; attending to the context and the person exhibiting the behavior; and creating new categories through which new behavior may be understood (Langer, 1997; Thich, 1991). These responses can only be initiated subsequent to a trigger event; thus, mindfulness can be readily conceptualized as an aspect of sensemaking.

Trigger Events

and InterCultural Sensemaking

Sensemaking involves placing stimuli into a framework that enables people “to comprehend, understand, explain, attribute, extrapolate, and predict" (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988: 51). Louis (1980) described the role of sensemaking in newcomer socialization as a thinking process that uses retrospective accounts to explain surprises.

Sensemaking can be viewed as a recurring cycle comprised of a sequence of events occurring over time. The cycle begins as individuals form unconscious and conscious anticipations and assumptions, which serve as predictions about future events. Subsequently, individuals experience events that may be discrepant from predictions. Discrepant events or surprises, trigger a need for explanation, or post-diction, and, correspondingly, for a process through which interpretations of discrepancies are developed. Interpretation, or meaning, is attributed to surprises…it is crucial to note that meaning is assigned to surprise as an output of the sense-making process, rather than arising concurrently with the perception or detection of differences (Louis, 1980: 241).

Thus, sensemaking is an ongoing activity. Within complex situations people “chop moments out of continuous flows and extract cues from those moments” (Weick, 1995: 43). An interruption to a flow often results in an emotional response when there is arousal in the autonomic nervous system. Emotion typically signals a failed expectation and serves as a warning that attention must be paid to a stimulus. The emotion lasts until individuals find an alternative action that maintains their sense of well being (Berscheid, Gangestad, & Kulaskowski, 1984). When a cue is extracted from the general flow of stimuli, it is “embellished” and linked to a more general idea, most commonly to a similar cue from one’s past (Weick, 1995). Once causal relationships are developed, the sensemaking is encoded into cognitive structures that are referred to as “schemas,” and the behavioral responses are called “scripts” (Sims & Gioia, 1986).

The phenomenon of intercultural sensemaking is complex and incorporates interrelated variables. Our goal in building the model found in Figure 1 was a parsimonious but comprehensive representation of reality. The model includes only those essential variables supported by the limited research findings, knowledge of the intercultural context, and pilot interviews. The model is based on the assumption that there are various reactions to trigger events, but we are primarily interested in the intercultural sensemaking reaction. The Trigger Events and Intercultural Sensemaking Model (see Figure 1) consists of the following categories of variables: 1) The Trigger Event results from the interaction between a Person, the Situation, and the arousal-attention aspect of sensemaking 2) which sets off conscious or unconscious Event Reactions; 4) the most transformational and positive reaction is Intercultural Sensemaking, which has 5) numerous cognitive, emotional, and behavioral Consequences. Our primary objective within this article is to explicate the relationship among variables in the Trigger Event category process. Given space limitations and the article’s focus, research propositions are presented only for this portion of the model.

=====

Insert Figure 1 here.

=====

The arousal-attention dynamic is a reciprocal interaction involving an emotional/physiological reason and a cognitive act of appraisal. Arousal and attention are discussed separately below, but the literature treats them as inextricably connected (Lewis, 2005; Gazzaniga, 2004CITE).

Arousal-Attention

Arousal can be defined as a physiological and psychological condition involving the autonomic nervous system and various neural systems collectively known as the arousal system. Physiologically, arousal primes people for fight or flight reactions. Psychologically, arousal sets off a rudimentary form of sensemaking (Mandel, 1984; Berscheid, 1983). Arousal has three characteristics: more sensitive to sensory stimuli, more physically active, and react more emotionally (Garey, et al., 2003). Arousal helps regulate consciousness, attention and information processing (Posner & Rothbart, 1998).Bradley and Lang (2000) note that variations in arousal are used as a means of differentiating types of emotion. Indeed, Lewis argues that, “Arousal of bodily systems is also a critical component of emotions, as it is necessary to prepare for and support the behaviors they induce (2005:187).” Emotional stimuli are associated with physiological responses involving body temperature, heart rate, breathing, perspiration and sets of physical actions such as fight or flight behaviors (Lewis, 2005). Reciprocally, bodily changes of the type noted above may in turn evoke emotions (Thayer & Lane, 2000).