Written by Source: Hessel Van der Maten on LinkedIn.
This article, originally posted on LinkedIn by Hessel Van Der Maten, from the Dutch Aviation Safety Board describes the value in cultural curiosity, asking yourself questions about your own cultural biases, and the influence of (often unconscious) cultural pressures on different stakeholders. Van Der Maten discusses Cultural Intelligence from the perspective of safety investigation, but the points he makes can be applied universally. Let’s not forget that aviation is an almost uniquely multi-national and multi-cultural environment so these considerations are more relevant to the industry than almost anywhere else.
For the full article on LinkedIn click here:
Throughout my aviation safety career, I’ve worked with people from all over the world—pilots, investigators, safety specialists, engineers, and regulators—all bringing their own unique beliefs, values, and worldviews. These differences don’t just shape how people act; they influence how we understand their actions. This is why Cultural Intelligence (CQ) is far more than just a “soft skill.” For anyone working in high-risk organizations, CQ is an essential tool for understanding decisions and actions in their full context.
Local Rationality in a Global Context
People’s actions make sense within their specific contexts. This is what David Woods calls “local rationality.” But this reasoning is shaped by cultural pressures. These pressures can include societal norms, values, or even expectations about authority, which vary widely across cultures.
For example, during an investigation in Panama—a country with a high Power Distance Index (one of Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions)—I saw that people were eager to follow instructions and defer to authority when things were going well, but when mistakes occurred, admitting errors was more difficult. This wasn’t about dishonesty; it was about preserving harmony and protecting relationships, a deeply ingrained cultural value. Recognizing this helped me adapt my approach to create an environment where people felt comfortable sharing information.
Rather than making assumptions about their reluctance to admit errors, I asked myself, “Why might this behavior make sense in their cultural context?”
Beyond CQ Awareness
Awareness of CQ dimensions (knowledge, strategy, motivation, and behavior) is not enough. Cultural intelligence isn’t just a framework to learn—it’s a skill investigators must actively develop and refine throughout their work.
Building CQ involves three interrelated steps:
Begin with curiosity by studying the cultural dynamics you may encounter, using tools like Hofstede’s dimensions or local briefings, but also ask reflective questions like, “What biases am I bringing into this investigation?” Consider the cultural pressures stakeholders may face. “Are they likely to avoid direct communication or prioritize harmony over confrontation?”
Next, follow through with real-time adjustments during the investigation and stay flexible. Observe behaviors closely and ask yourself, “What could this behavior mean in their context?” Adjust your approach based on what you learn. For instance, if someone avoids answering a direct question, consider whether indirect communication might be more effective.
Finally, reflect after the investigation, what worked and what didn’t. Ask, “What did I learn about cultural dynamics, and how can I improve next time?” Treat each investigation as an opportunity to deepen your understanding and refine your approach.
As accident investigations grow more complex, this cycle of preparation, real-time adaptation, and reflective learning ensures that CQ remains a dynamic and practical skill.
CQ in a Tech-Driven World
As if accident investigations weren’t complex enought, the rise of AI and automation adds a new layer to safety work. While these tools amplify efficiency, they can’t replace human interpretation in cross-cultural contexts. For example:
CQ becomes indispensable when interpreting AI outputs: Automated systems often reflect the cultural biases of their creators. So it helps investigators question results and interpret them within the broader cultural context.
CQ is absolutely necessary when navigating human-AI interactions: Different cultures approach technology differently. For example, attitudes toward authority influence how people interact with automated systems or report failures.
CQ is a must for global collaboration: Multinational teams working with AI systems need CQ to ensure diverse perspectives are considered in decisions.
In this tech-driven world, CQ bridges the gap between data and human understanding, so that cultural context isn’t lost in translation.
Lessons from Experience
Having lived and worked in countries like the Netherlands, Curacao, Spain, Panama, and the United States, I’ve seen firsthand how cultural differences shape safety work. Some cultures prioritize equality, while others defer to authority. Some value direct communication, while others rely on subtle, non-verbal cues.
In today’s interconnected and rapidly evolving world, understanding these dynamics is no longer optional for those working in safety. Learning from accidents, or preventing them, requires more than technical knowledge. It demands that we step into the shoes of others, understand their local rationality, and engage with empathy.
Luckily, CQ is a skill we can develop with a little bit of effort. It is the key to uncovering deeper truths, building trust, and creating lasting improvements in how we manage risk.