Navy SEALS-Crossing Cultures: Cross-Cultural Competence and Decision Styles

U.S. military cross-cultural competence is currently deficient, as Special Operations Forces (SOF) personnel assessments fail to explicitly consider aspects related to crosscultural competence and lack processes specifically tailored to cross-cultural personnel assignments. Researchers, however, have identified eleven attributes that contribute to military cross-cultural competence; this study uses these attributes to explore whether decision styles and demographics correlate with cross-cultural competence. Building on existing work on the attributes of military cross-cultural competence (defined in this study as the ability to quickly and accurately assess, then effectively act, in a culturally complex environment to achieve mission results), I first examined the attribute profiles of experienced Navy Sea, Air, and Land Forces (SEALs) to distinguish between crosscultural superior and substandard scorers. Logistic regression analysis was then used to estimate relationships between several demographic and decision-style factors and individual scores in cross-cultural competence. The analysis concluded with a comparison of attribute profiles of experienced and newly minted SEALs. Throughout the analyses, all statistical testing was done at the 5% level of significance or stronger. Although 7.5% of the entire active SEAL community participated in the research (n = 253), the empirical results are suggestive but far from conclusive. For example, results revealed statistically significant correlations among the 11 factors associated with cross-cultural competence and decision-style factors (especially the need for cognition) and two demographic traits. Based on the attribute profiles of superior and substandard scorers, it appears SEALs have registered strong cross-cultural competence baselines. Furthermore, mean scores for the entire SEAL population in the study revealed a strong cognitive style attribute profile from a cross-cultural competence perspective. Additional analysis indicated newly minted SEALs, especially those with high scores in need for cognition, may be better positioned than the average experienced SEAL to perform well when engaging with foreign partners. Although this is the first study that assesses a decision-style model for correlation with cross-cultural competence (and more research is needed), it suggests decision styles may be a useful tool for selection, assessment, and assignment of military personnel who deal extensively across cultures (e.g., Army Green Berets, Foreign Area Officers, and SOF Liaison Officers). DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my children and my better half, my partner and teammate. These four have been my reason, my inspiration, and my support system. I started the University of San Diego (USD) PhD Program in leadership studies as a single parent raising three children. In addition to enduring my military service and the time commitments and absences that entails, they endured my added absence for class and an additional time commitment for my studies. They never complained, and they were always supportive. Throughout my long PhD “career,” my wife was a constant source of motivation—even when I lost my own. She makes me better, and she has made this work better through her example of excellence, grit, and engagement. I am a better man because of these four, and I dedicate this work in their honor.


INTRODUCTION
When roused to energy, they may be induced to act, but, with pompous promises and grandiloquent phrases, postponement and the fear of troubling, their lazy intellects predominated. It was always manana, but never today with them. To put off everything seemed looked upon as the acme of all that was clever, and never to do that which another could do for them was the perfection of dexterity. Their whole mind, in short, seemed bent upon doing nothing and-they did it. (Esdaile, 2007, p. 161) This epigraph is from a British officer complaining about his Spaniard partners during the Napoleonic Wars. It was humorous to my Special Operations teammates and me that this description from the 1800s appeared so appropriate for our current partners in Yemen, Iraq, and Afghanistan. However, Esdaile (2007) highlighted in memoir after memoir from the Napoleonic Wars the "tremendous prejudice" (p. 161) of British service members toward all foreigners. Perhaps the issue, here and now, does not solely lie with foreign partners but also with U.S. military members' abilities to interact and partner across cultures.
In this study, I focused on U.S. Navy Sea, Air, and Land Forces (SEALs) operating in a cross-cultural environment. The word SEAL is both an acronym for SEa, Air, and Land (a descriptor of the operational environment in which SEALs work) and a noun, the name of U.S. naval commandoes. In a 2012 visit to Afghanistan, the U.S. Department of State political advisor assigned to the Naval Special Warfare Command, headquarters to all U.S. Navy SEALs, received an unexpected answer to a question she asked a senior SEAL leader (J. Patterson, personal communication, 2013). She asked the second highest ranking officer of a deployed SEAL team why his team was not attempting to drive a wedge between local villagers and the Taliban by highlighting the very recent murder of several small children perpetrated through an improvised explosive device planted by the Taliban. The SEAL leader responded that doing so would not be effective because "these people don't care about their children." The political advisor asked him to explain. A local man, the SEAL Lieutenant Commander said, brought two of the victims-his children-to the nearby U.S. military hospital. His children died on the operating table, and the man did not shed a tear; he was emotionless about his loss as he walked from the hospital. The political advisor, a midgrade foreign service officer and a Pashtu speaker with significant experience in Afghanistan, was taken aback. She explained to the SEAL officer that refusing to express grief in public does not indicate an absence of grief. Pashtun men do not show emotion in public-it would bring them dishonor and shame (J. Patterson, personal communication, 2013).
This story is one vignette that underscores a recognized shortfall in cultural awareness and cross-cultural competence in the U.S. military (Bezhan, 2012;McFate, 2005a). This story highlights a lack of specific and localized cultural knowledge, the most readily apparent cross-cultural shortfall. However, in the literature review (Chapter 2), I will show language and culture-specific information-and the related education and training-are only two factors in the multifaceted nature of cross-cultural performance.
The genesis of this study springs from personal experience and an acknowledged need (U.S. Special Operations Command [USSOCOM], 2012a, 2012b) to improve U.S. Special Operations Forces' (SOF) capacity in "managing [intercultural] interaction in ways that are likely to produce more appropriate and effective individual, relational, group, or institutional outcomes" (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 6). My experience as a SEAL deployed to Kenya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen provided the personal motivation for this research. The requirement for cross-cultural competence in SOF provides the justification and significance for this research.

Background to the Study
From the broadest perspective, beyond the military application, there are increasing opportunities to interact and work across cultures (Chhoakar, Brodback, & House, 2007;Deardorff, 2006;Earley & Ang, 2003;Earley & Gibson, 2002;Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkoff, 2010;House, Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, & Sully de Luque, 2014;House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfan, & Gupta, 2004;Walker & Mansour, 2013). This increased opportunity to interact across cultures is driven by an increasingly diverse workforce at home, global commerce, networked or partnered organizations, global immigration, and international travel. Earley, Ang, and Tan (2006) underscored the pressing need for cross-cultural competence in all fields: It is urgent to build individual and organizational capacity to meet the social, relational, and communication needs thrown up by globalization. Among the twenty-first century skills frequently talked about are the ability to adapt constantly to different people from diverse cultures and the ability to manage the interconnectedness of today's world. Interactions in the global workplace require individuals to be sensitive to different cultures, capable of analyzing them as they are encountered, identify what is required of people from other cultures, and engaging in appropriate interactions with them. (p. 2) While expanding in scope and pace in recent years, cross-cultural interaction is not a new phenomenon. Cross-cultural engagement has a conceptual foundation that has been established across 60 years of scholarly effort (Allport, 1954;Benson, 1978;Ezekiel, 1968;Harris, 1977;Smith, 1966;Smith, Fawcett, Ezekiel, & Roth, 1963;Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009).
Beyond the original research contexts of business, education, and civilgovernment relations, cross-cultural competence is particularly important in the military context. For more than 18 years, the United States has been engaged in combat operations, with notable shortfalls that moved senior leaders to prioritize a focus on cross-cultural competence. According to Ross, Thornson, McDonald, and Arrastia (2010): Instances of stereotyping, racism, and abuse of power by military personnel have further showcased the ways in which military members have alienated the local populations. For these reasons, the Department of Defense has recently made the assessment and training of cross-cultural competence a top priority for the military. (p. 1) Military operations for extended periods in other countries place a high premium on successful cross-cultural interaction. Cross-cultural competence, therefore, is a matter of significant importance to the military. Relating to and engaging foreign allies and partners, understanding the issues important to the local populace, mitigating negative consequences of military operations in their neighborhoods (Finney, 2008), and understanding the motivations and priorities of the enemy are facilitated with some degree of cross-cultural insight and competence (Langewiesche, 2004;Lucas, 2009;Putman, 2004;Rubinstein, Fosher, & Fujimuru, 2013;Selmeski, 2007).
Outside of defined theaters of war, the military requirement for cross-cultural competence is just as significant. Special Operations Forces work with partner forces in more than 149 countries around the world (Toft, 2018). These deployed forces coordinate closely with and follow the lead of the U.S. ambassador and the interagency country team in each embassy. As a result, the military crosses national and ethnic cultures in dealing with foreign partners and host nation governments and crossing organizational cultures.
Each embassy has its own organizational culture, and each of the agencies that combines to form the U.S. national security infrastructure has its own unique culture.
The U.S. military has sought to develop cross-cultural competence though a number of approaches, one of which is the development of specialists with regional expertise. Foreign area officers comprise a specialty field with the Department of Defense (DOD) with master's degrees in regional studies and extensive language training. Foreign area officers serve as cultural, political, and strategic affairs experts in the DOD (Foreign Area Officer Association, 2020). In 2009, the DOD established a program "to develop a cadre of military and senior civilian experts specializing in the complexities of Afghanistan and Pakistan-the language, culture, processes and challenges" (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2009, p. 1). In December 2013, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff mandated a similar program for the Asia Pacific region (U.S. Navy, 2020). The U.S. Special Operations Command created a cadre of senior special operations officers imbedded with foreign headquarters and partner special operations units. These programs focus on area specific knowledge. This is a general trend in DOD cross-cultural efforts-seeking improvement in cultural competence through culture-specific academic education and training in addition to long-term focus on a specific area or country. As I discuss in Chapter 2, this is only one aspect of crosscultural competence.
The U.S. Navy SEALs have developed a program to acquire deep microregional expertise through the accession of foreign-born naturalized citizens to create the Naval Special Warfare Cultural Engagement Unit (Coover, 2016). These language and regional experts are native speakers who possess insiders' knowledge and perceptions of specific cultures. This insight is deeper and broader than nonnatives educated on a specific region or country, and their military training and integration with Navy SEALs provides them with the ability for technical translation not available with most linguists/translators. Another approach to address the requirement for military cross-cultural competency is to develop small teams of experts or develop unit-level cross-cultural capacities and expertise. This "expert and focus" approach might include teams of social scientists and cultural experts (Finney, 2008;McFate, 2008), army battalions focused on a specific region ("Regionally Aligned Brigades," 2013), or a unit dedicated to training foreign partners in boat operations and maintenance and small unit combat skills ("Naval Small Craft Instruction and Tactical Training School," 2020).
In addition to developing specialists or teams primarily focused on cross-cultural interaction, efforts have also focused on broader development of individual cross-cultural capacities. For example, at the peak of the DOD's SOF cross-cultural focus in 2012, USSOCOM mandated increased training and raised standards for language proficiency. It also mandated cultural training and education across SOF.
Compared to conventional military units, U.S. SOF have a high degree of interaction with foreign counterparts and other agencies and departments in the U.S. government (e.g., interagency groups and processes). As a result, cross-cultural competence is especially important for SOF. Three of the four special operations components include a high frequency of cross-cultural interaction. The U.S. Army Special Operations Command, and primarily its Special Forces (also known as Green Berets), is the only USSOCOM element that specifically selects personnel for crosscultural interaction (Turnley, 2011). Special Forces assess and select for their primary mission of unconventional warfare, which uses surrogates and proxies and requires significant human interaction (U.S. Army, 2008). The Marine Special Operations Command and Naval Special Warfare (e.g., Navy SEALs), while not specifically selecting for cross-cultural capacities, have significant cross-cultural interactions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the globe in their roles as advisors and trainers to foreign partners. The fourth element of U.S. Special Operations, the Air Force Special Operations Command, has little cross-cultural interaction with the exception of a relatively small unit of trainers who work with foreign air forces (Turnley, 2011).
The DOD emphasis on cross-cultural understanding and competence has waxed and waned. The DOD reached a high watermark during the Vietnam conflict (Abbe & Gouge, 2012;Deitchman, 2014)  Committees. Recently, USSOCOM commanders (Clarke, 2019;Thomas, 2018Thomas, , 2019 briefly mentioned working with partners and education in culture and language, but cross-cultural issues did not receive the emphasis or focus they did in 2012. Despite the inevitable institutional shift in priorities and focus away from cross-cultural competence, the requirement for cross-cultural competence is well established and is not likely to abate.

Relevance to Leadership
This research was conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a PhD in leadership studies. Cross-cultural competence in the SEAL Teams is closely related to leadership. In combat and in training, SEALs and other Special Operations Forces are often leading combined elements, composed of U.S. and partner forces. There is no more difficult leadership challenge than to lead while crossing cultures. This leadership takes place at all levels-from the most senior member leading a mission to the most junior member of the team acting as an instructor for basic and advanced training or mentoring guiding partner nation forces in mission execution. Faced with different cultures and their corresponding values and judgments-as well as often contrasting motivations and allegiances-leading across cultures can be frustrating. A leader must manage their own personal frustration, the frustration of their U.S. teammates, and the frustration of partner nation forces. Having the capacity, motivation, and focus on cross-culture competence will help improve results for military members leading across cultures.

Problem Statement
Price (2011) underscored the root of the U.S military's cross-cultural shortcomings in a comment about a 2004 Initial Impressions Report on operations in Mosul, Iraq, from a U.S. Army Stryker brigade: "The residual image is of a pelagic military only beginning to become aware of the depths of their own ignorance of the complex environment they are trying to occupy and dominate" (pp. 133-134). That awareness continued to grow and be expressed by senior military leaders (Fitzgerald, 2010;Mak, 2011). While arguably more cross-culturally competent than conventional forces (Turnley, 2011), U.S. SOF have no explicit conceptualization or framework to guide the development of cross-cultural capacity. As interest and awareness in cross-cultural competence grew, U.S. Special Operations strategy and guidance documents (SOCOM, 2012a(SOCOM, , 2012b identified a requirement to operate in the human domain (implying crosscultural interaction). The 2012 strategy included significant discussion of working with allies, partners, and interagency and proposed an invigorated effort in formal education.
However, there was no discussion of how to develop, improve, and maintain the crosscultural capacity necessary to meet the identified requirements beyond establishing language competency goals across the force and mandating undefined cultural education and training. In USSOCOM documents, there was no reference to any cross-culturalrelated academic research and no discussion of metrics necessary to measure the progress or effectiveness of culture-related education and training efforts.
Despite the significant and increasing requirement to effectively function across cultures, SOF have no clear framework to design cross-cultural training and education, no clear method to measure progress and effectiveness in this area, no process of personnel assessment that considers cross-cultural competence and no process specifically tailored to personnel assignment related to high-frequency, cross-cultural positions.

Purpose of the Study
In this research, I used demographics to explore whether decision style and personal background correlate to cross-cultural competence. The core question was: Are some people more primed to excel in a cross-cultural environment? If so, perhaps this insight into personal capacity or limitations for cross-cultural competence can help focus selection and training for these types of missions toward those individuals.
In this study, I focused on experienced U.S. Navy SEALs and new SEALs who recently completed basic SEAL training. I am a retired Navy SEAL who, at the beginning of the study, was an active duty senior SEAL officer assigned to Naval Special Warfare Command, the higher headquarters for all SEAL commands. My position offered unique research access to the SEAL community. Using self-reported instruments of crosscultural relevance, I examined the relationships of key variables captured in these instruments to individual performance in cross-cultural competence assessments. Two objectives were identified for this study. The first objective was to identify personal traits (factors) with high correlations to superior or lagging performance in cross-cultural competence assessments. If identified, these factors could assist with the design of SOF training and education focused on cross-cultural capability and the related measurement of program effectiveness. The second objective was to compare new SEAL graduate profiles with associated factors related to success or underperformance in cross-cultural assessments to help identify areas of education and training to advance recent graduates to the level of cross-cultural high performer. Additionally, correlations of demographic factors for superior cross-cultural scorers could help identify relatively stable personality factors (traits) that might contribute to cross-cultural performance, highlighting both a need and a method for cross-cultural-related personnel screening. Understanding personality factors that potentially correlate to cross-cultural competence could assist with related personnel assignments or perhaps screening of SEAL candidates.

Research Questions
In this research, I posed two primary research questions:

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this literature review, I begin with an examination of the concept of culture and then discuss the recent emphasis and issues related to the importance of culture for the military. On this foundation, I defined and examined cross-cultural competence from a historical and military perspective. A review of cross-culture competence models and assessments completes this chapter.

Culture
Before cross-cultural competence is examined, it is important to explain what is meant by culture, a common but "very muddied concept" (Hall, 1959, p. 20) and to discuss how the concept of culture was applied in this research. While the culture literature is vast, dating back to the 19th century, the culture concept is framed in the two quotations that follow from the perspective of operating across cultures (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009), primarily in a military context (Lucas, 2009;McFate, 2005a;Price, 2011;Salmoni & Holmes-Eber, 2008;Sands & Sands, 2014;Schmorrow & Nicholson, 2013;Selmeski, 2007;Turnley, 2011;van Driel, 2011). Hall (1959) underscored the "muddiness" of the culture concept: For anthropologists culture has long stood for the way of life of people, for the sum of their learned behavior patterns, attitudes, and material things. Though they subscribe to this general view, most anthropologists tend to disagree however, on what the precise substance of culture is. . . . In sum, though the concept of culture was first defined in print in 1871 by E.B. Taylor, after all these years it still lacks the rigorous specificity which characterizes many less revolutionary and useful ideas. (p. 20) Price (2001) described it this way: Today, anthropologists debate not only the nature (and existence . . .) of culture, but there is a greater acknowledgement of such a diversity of specific cultural traits, today few anthropologists would be comfortable with the sort of vulgar generalizations that are the basis of [efforts to identify national character or broad culture types as attempted by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), among others]. (p. 144) Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) considered culture a primitive theoretical term, concerned with enduring yet evolving intergenerational attitudes, values, beliefs, rituals/customs, and behavioral patterns into which people are born but that is structurationally created and maintained by people's ongoing actions. Thus, intercultural competence is the appropriate and effective management of interaction between people who, to some degree or another, represent different or divergent affective, cognitive, and behavioral orientations to the world. These orientations will most commonly be reflected in such normative categories as nationality, race, ethnicity, tribe, religion, or region. (pp. [6][7] Acknowledging the debate surrounding culture's definition and accepting that generalizations are prone to inaccuracy, the culture concept should be framed and its boundaries established to better understand interactions across cultures. Selmeski (2007) provided a useful overview. Culture is not a thing, a social group, a material object, an activity, or an officially articulated statement. Culture is dependent upon the whole-not isolated parts. Culture is passed across generations-learned, shared, patterned, and transmitted in daily life, in taboo and preference, in spoken and unspoken ways. Culture is relatively stable but is not static; it is adaptive to biological, political, environmental, or social requirements, but not always adapted as might be expected. Culture is influential but not predictive. Culture is expressed in multiple forms: (a) embedded as meanings, (b) embodied as feelings, and (c) enacted as behaviors.
Historian Barak Salmoni and anthropologist Paula Holmes-Eber (2008) defined culture as "the shared worldview and social structures of a group of people that influence a person's and a group's actions and choices" (p. 36). Anthropologist Jessica Turnley (2011), in an assessment of cross-cultural competence of SOF, framed culture as sense-making strategies that help define what is relevant, the value of those relevant things, and subsequently creates assumptions that guide behavior. Turnley (2011) defined culture as a set of dynamic, ever changing frames of reference. It is a set of perspectives and assumptions created, maintained, and changed by a group of people about the way the world works. These assumptions allow people in this group to create shared expectations about the behavior of others. They tell us what is relevant. These assumptions also color the way in which group members interpret and value what they see. These perspectives apply moral weight to behavior. They tell us what is good and bad, right and wrong. In short, these frames of reference help make sense of the world for us. (p. 15) In the Counterinsurgency (COIN) Manual, Petraeus (2006) suggested: Culture might also be described as an "operational code" that is valid for an entire group of people. It is closer to the truth to say, "People live culturally rather than people live in cultures" (Selmeski, 2007, p. 4). Those living in culturally different ways have "a completely different way of organizing life, of thinking, and of conceiving the underlying assumptions about the family and the state, the economic system, and even of mankind" (Hall, 1959, p. 23).
This research is not about culture but rather about crossing cultures-interacting and working with others with a different "operational code" or worldview. The most comprehensive of the research includes the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project studies (Chhoakar et al., 2007;House et al., 2004;House et al., 2014) and Javidan's work on the global mindset and leadership (Walker & Javidan, 2013). Their work provides ways to characterize culture and determine the effects of cultural differences with a focus on leadership. Cross-cultural military operations hinge on military members not only to cross cultures but also to lead across cultures. Military personnel deploying to a cross-cultural mission would be well advised to have this research in their kit bag. Before the literature on cross-culture competence is reviewed, however, the unique aspects of culture and the military are considered.

Culture and the Military
The connection between military operations and culture is ancient, tenuous, and contentious. By tenuous, I mean, while the importance of cultural knowledge is widely recognized by military practitioners, deep understanding of the culture concept and examination of specific cultures are rarely pursued. Indeed, it is the rare military specialist who pursues an understanding of different cultures with the same focus and emphasis as more traditional martial skills. When pursued to improve the military's success in combat, the use of social science and academic cultural knowledge can be controversial. According to McFate (2005): Cultural knowledge and warfare are inextricably bound. Knowledge of one's adversary as a means to improve military prowess has been sought since Herodotus studied his opponents' conduct during the Persian Wars (490-479 BC). Although "know thy enemy" is one of the first principles of warfare, our military operations and national security decision making have consistently suffered due to lack of knowledge of foreign cultures. pp. 42-43) As Price (2011) wrote: I find extraordinary continuities of roles, status, and economic contingencies between the military and the academy as many of the present efforts to use anthropology for conquest mirror specific failed efforts to use and abuse American anthropology during the Second World War and the Vietnam War with little realization of these continuities of failure. (p. 5) The invasions of Afghanistan (October 7, 2001; "The History of the Afghanistan War," 2012) and Iraq (March 20, 2003;"Timeline: The Iraq War," 2016) and the resulting resistance by irregular local forces, the recognized difficulty U.S. and allied forces had defeating these irregular fighters and the apparent inadequate or inappropriate interactions with local civilians highlighted the need for improved abilities to interact across cultures. According to Ross, MacNulty, Bencaz, Thornson, and Johnston (2010): Concerns that the military as a whole is not prepared to conduct operations in a way that understands cultures has sparked an influx of research into areas related to cross-cultural competence. Instances of stereotyping, racism, and abuse of power by military personnel have further showcased the ways in which military members have alienated the local populations. For these reasons, the Department of Defense has recently made the assessment and training of cross-cultural competence a top priority for the military (e.g., Langewiesche, 2004;McFarland, 2005;Putman, 2004 (DOD, 2006b) and Building Partnership Capacity (DOD, 2006c) further underscored the importance of cultural and regional expertise and language. According to van Driel (2011), "A substantial amount of policy and strategy exists regarding the development and institutionalization of cross-cultural competence within the Department of Defense" (p. 11). This includes DOD directives on Irregular Warfare (DOD, 2008) and Stability Operations (DOD, 2009), which place a premium on cultural understanding. In response to DOD guidance and emphasis, military services have developed their service-unique strategy and a dedicated organization focused on culture and language (see Table 2.1). In addition to these service strategies and centers, the Defense Language Institute, located in Monterey, California, provides language training and related culture specific education to all services. The combination of military operations and cultural study is not without controversy and ethical debate. Concerns over "harnessing anthropology and culture for the domination of others" (Price, 2011, p. 1) have been expressed in the academic community. According to Price (2011): As others have pointed out, while World War I was the Chemists' War and World War II the Physicists' War, the current wars with their heavy reliance on the cultural knowledge needed for counterinsurgency and occupation are envisioned by many Pentagon strategists as the Anthropologists' War; yet many in Washington seemed truly surprised at the push-back from anthropologists upon news of the formation of Human Terrain Teams and other efforts to adapt anthropology for counterinsurgency and asymmetrical warfare. (p. 2) Some (Gonzales, 2007(Gonzales, , 2010Jamail, 2010;Lutz, 2008;Price, 2000Price, , 2001Price, , 2007aPrice, , 2007bPrice, , 2008Price, , 2011 reject most, if not all, association of the social sciences, in general, and anthropology, specifically, with the military and object to the "militarization" of anthropology (Lucas, 2009, p. 7). Other anthropologists advocate for social science support to work closely with the military and provide related education and advice (Holmes-Eber, 2013;McFate, 2005aMcFate, , 2005bRubinstein, 2013;Salmoni & Holmes-Eber, 2008;Turnley, 2011Turnley, , 2013Varhola, 2013).
Lucas (2009) examined opposing perspectives on moral and ethical grounds.
They pointed out there are clearly prohibited activities, including illegal interrogation and torture, and acknowledged the valid concerns surrounding the protection and security of those who are the subject of academic study. However, they argued social science support to the government and the military cannot be summarily rejected on moral grounds. The moral participation by anthropologists and social scientists extends even to wars that might be considered illegal or unjust. According to Lucas (2009): It would be possible in principle for the participation by anthropologists in such wars [those wars found to be proscribed by international law and failing to satisfy just war criteria] to be morally justified, if that participation were aimed at what is increasingly termed just post bellum: that is, if anthropological expertise were sought solely for the purposes of minimizing casualties, ending conflict, restoring peace, and extricating the invading troops as quickly as possible.   House (Chhoakar et al., 2007;House et al., 2004;House et al., 2014).

Research History
Research on interacting across cultures has roots in the 1950s (Lysgaard, 1955) and 1960s (Ezekiel, 1968;Guthrie & Sektick, 1967;Mischel, 1965;Smith, 1966;Smith et al., 1963). Early researchers examined Peace Corps volunteers and students studying abroad and focused on their capacities to adjust to assignments in foreign countries, character traits that may assist in adjustment and performance and the ability to predict performance based on assessed traits. Terms like intercultural competence, effectiveness, and adaptation can be found in studies from the 1970s (Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978;Ruben, 1976;Ruben & Kealey, 1979) and 1980s (Wiseman & Abe, 1986 Reid, Steinke, et al., 2012;Ross & Thornson, 2008a, 2008b. This sponsorship and the integration and progressive design of these studies have resulted in a notable maturation of military-related, cross-cultural competence models and assessments. , Selmeski (2007), and Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) highlighted semantic and conceptual issues with the construct of competence. For example, competence is sometimes equated to a set of skills and abilities; discussions of knowledge, skills, and abilities are common. However, competence has also been discussed as a subjective evaluative impression (Abbe & Bortnick, 2010;Turnley, 2011 Furthermore, context can undermine an attempt to establish standards and measures of cross-cultural competence (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984. One skill or behavior may be assessed as competent in one context but not another-"Thus no particular skill is likely to ever be universally competent" (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 6). In this research, I used the definition of competence presented by Abbe and Bortnick (2010): "A set of behaviors that describes excellent performance" (p. 14), where that set of behaviors requires knowledge, supporting skills and abilities, and complementary personality traits.

Characterization of Cross-Cultural Competence
As with culture, Selmeski (2007) provided a useful frame of what cross-cultural competence is and is not. It is not merely knowledge of international relations or additional language training, although cross-cultural competence is complemented by foreign language capability. Cross-cultural competence is not merely cultural awareness or knowledge of specific cultures. It requires a balance between general knowledge and specialization, a firm grasp of the culture concept rather than expertise in a particular culture, and an appreciation for the importance of language and the ability to use a translator as opposed to the capability to become a linguist. Cross-cultural competence requires ongoing, active learning developed through training, education, and development. This learning leads to a greater understanding of other people's way of thinking and acting and requires the recognition and acceptance of diversity. Crosscultural competence entails a "conversion of this knowledge to action through cultivation of positive behaviors, the ability to adapt and integrate awareness to action" (Selmeski, 2007, p. 12).

Defining Cross-Cultural Competence
Cross-cultural competence refers to a combination of culture-general knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes (Paris, 2012), including affect and motivation . Cross-cultural competence is developed through education, training, and experience (Ross, 2008) and is considered a lifelong process (Reid, Kaloydis, et al., 2012). Maximizing and leveraging inherent characteristics such as personality traits (Reid, Kaloydis, et al., 2012) are also considered a part of cross-cultural competence.
Cross-cultural competence is "the ability to quickly and accurately comprehend, then appropriately and effectively act, in a culturally complex environment to achieve the desired effect" (U.S. Air Force, 2009, p. 19). This rapid and accurate comprehension and appropriate and effective action should take place despite the lack of in-depth knowledge of the other culture  and though "fundamental aspects of the other culture may contradict one's own taken-for-granted assumptions and deeply held beliefs" (Selmeski, 2007, p. 12).

Military Cross-Cultural Competence
Cross-cultural competence research has been focused on health and social sciences (D'Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991;Holcomb-McCoy & Myers, 1999;LaFromboise, Coleman, & Hernandez, 1991;Ponterotto et al., 1996;Sodowsky, Kuo-Jackson, Richardson, & Corey, 1998), diplomacy and international development/aid (Ezekiel, 1968;Guthrie & Sektick, 1967;Harris, 1973Harris, , 1977Lysgaard, 1955;Mischel, 1965;Smith, 1966;Smith et al., 1963), and business (Koester & Olebe, 1988;Matsumoto et al., 2001;van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000). However, there are significant differences between these sectors and the military (Selmeski, 2007) that require militaryspecific focus . The consequences of military operations are life and death; for business, they are profit and loss; and, even in the medical field, cross-cultural competence is focused on patient interaction rather than life and death care. Military operations create a greater power differential with the local populace and increase the likelihood of local grievances such as occupation, destroyed property, and killing (intentionally or unintentionally). While past research on cross-cultural competence provides a useful foundation, research specifically focused on the military is needed to account for these unique contexts and circumstances.
Renstch, Gunderson, Goodwin, and  highlighted negative military consequences of cultural ignorance and insufficient cross-cultural competence. These negative consequences include deadly consequences at the tactical level of engagement.
At the organizational level, negative public opinion may be generated, and at the strategic level, destructive policies may be developed and implemented.
Cross-cultural competence in the military is not only required for operational and tactical success, but it contributes to institutional strength and professional wellbeing (Selmeski, 2007). On the tactical and operational front, cross-cultural competence can aid in the assessment and management of multicultural diversity with allies and foreign partners, and in U.S. units and interactions with sister U.S. services (who maintain a different organizational culture). Interaction with noncombatants, including nonmilitary government actors, nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, and civilians, can also be positively impacted with cross-cultural competence. This interaction with nonmilitary personnel and organizations can be even more difficult than interacting with foreign militaries. As Abbe et al. (2007) stated: Cross-cultural competence provides capability for a range of settings, including but not limited to interactions between two nations. This culture-general capability is particularly relevant when knowing one particular foreign culture or region is insufficient, such as in multinational operations, and when cultural difference are not just national or ethnic, but also organizational in nature . . . . Some findings even suggest that differences at the organization level, between military services and civilian organizations, may be more influential than differences at the national/societal level, between the militaries of different nations. (p. 1) On the institutional front, cross-cultural competence can instill a greater public trust and respect and contribute to an increase in self-regulation (making better decisions and taking more appropriate action), thereby increasing the degree of autonomy granted by stakeholders, including politicians and U.S. citizens (Selmeski, 2007). According to Abbe, 2008): The ability to look past gender, racial, or cultural differences to find common ground contributes to collaboration and teamwork as well as positive intergroup relations more generally. Cultural understanding is important in considering the impact of the local population on military operations, as well as predicting and understanding adversary intent in planning and conducting . . . operations. (p. 6)

Special Operations Forces and Cross-Cultural Competence
The USSOCOM, the headquarters in charge of all U.S. SOF, has placed a significant emphasis on the ability to operate across cultures. In SOCOM 2020 (SOCOM, 2012a), a strategic vision for the future of SOF, the need to partner with others and operate across cultures was highlighted: It is an undeniable reality the U.S. cannot address the challenges of tomorrow alone. In an era of increasing responsibilities, competing priorities and reduced resources, we must build a Global SOF network of like-minded interagency, allies, and partners who proactively anticipate threats and are prepared to operate toward cooperative security solutions in cost effective ways. primarily on physical fitness and on psychological qualities that would help candidates get through BUD/S (teamwork and the ability to complete tasks under stress)" (Turnley, 2011, p. 41).

Cross-Cultural Models
Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) described five models used in attempts to frame and explain cross-cultural competence. These models are not mutually exclusive, and other types may exist, but most will fit in this typology. The individual is the unit of analysis for most cross-cultural models. The models most common in military crosscultural literature are the development and compositional models, with the most recent military-related models combining aspects of both. These military-related, cross-cultural competence models will be discussed and related literature highlighted at the end of this section. The first three models discussed are co-orientation, adaptation, and causal.
Co-orientation models (Byrum, 1997;Fantini, 1995;Kupka, 2008) have a focus on shared meaning and interaction between people of different cultures who develop common references and mutual understanding over time and through multiple interactions. These models stress relationships, time, and iterative adjustments. Any cross-cultural interaction is co-oriented and defined by not one but two (or more) individuals. In response to the other from another culture, adjustment and interpretation is required. Spitzberg and Changnon (2009)  Adaptation models (Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989;Kim, 1988;Navas, Rojas, Garcia, & Pumares, 2007) have a focus on adjusting to foreign cultures through interacting in them. Expatriates, business personnel assigned overseas, and study abroad students are often the focus of these models. Adaptation models underscore a foundational assumption of almost all cross-cultural competence models. Adaptability is critical to achieving competence; however, "adaptation, in and of itself is a questionable criterion for competence" (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 29).
Causal path models (Arasaratnam, 2006;Griffith & Harvey, 2000;Ting-Toomey, 1999) specify interrelationships among components in a linear system. These models are most easily translated into testable propositions; however, the complexity, multidimensionality, and nonlinear nature of cross-cultural interaction make any causal path exceedingly difficult to map and verify.
Development models (Bennett, 1986;Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1962;King & Magdolda, 2005) have an emphasis on stages of progression or maturity over time and are commonly used when training and development are the primary focus. According to Spitzberg and Changnon (2009), "Developmental models . . . tend to be strong in modeling systemic states of change but corresponding weak in specifying the interpersonal and intercultural competence traits that facilitate or moderate the course of such evolution" (p. 24).
Selmeski (2007) Compositional models (Deardorff, 2006;Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998) list relevant traits, characteristics, and skills, but, unlike causal path models, they do not specify relationships among these components. The DLO framework for cross-cultural competence (Johnston, Paris, McDCoy, Severe, & Hughes, 2010) represents "the most carefully constructed conceptualization of 3C for the U.S. Military at this time" (Gabrenya, Moukarzel, et al., 2012, p. 3). The DLO framework is considered a compositional model , and, as with any model, there are advantages and disadvantages. According to Spitzberg and Changnon (2009): Compositional models have been very useful in defining the basic scope and contents that a theory on intercultural communication competence needs to incorporate. They are theoretically weak, however, in their ability to specify conditional relations among the components. They are also theoretically weak in leaving fundamentally undefined the precise criteria by which competence itself is defined. It is generally not clear, in other words, what constitutes competence in these models-what levels of proficiency, what specific combination of criteria or outcomes, would be determinative of competence? (p. 15) This weakness of compositional models underscores the previous discussion of competence and the difficulty of translating or mapping competencies (e.g., KSAOs) into competence (e.g., outcomes and overall/holistic performance). However, the DLO framework for cross-cultural competence, using a hybrid compositional-development model, does attempt to characterize proficiency at various stages and identifies combinations of KSAOs that contribute to competency at each stage.  Table 2.2).  Abbe et al. (2007) identified antecedents as a contributor to cross-cultural competence. Antecedents include life history and experience, stable dispositional (personality) traits, and self-identity (ego strength and self-efficacy).
Researchers of subsequent studies (Hardison et al., 2009;McCloskey, Behymer, et al., 2010;McCloskey, Gandjean, et al., 2010;McDonald et al., 2008; have refined and restated critical components of military cross-cultural competence and identified related learning objectives and supporting competencies and behaviors. Johnston et al. (2010) developed and Johnston, Paris, Wisecarver, Ferro, and Hope (2011) later refined a framework for cross-cultural competence. In this framework, six core competencies and 13 core enablers were identified and are depicted in Table 2.3.
Core competencies can be characterized as abilities-cognitive, behavioral and attitudinal characteristics-while enablers are akin to personality traits. These enablers provide motivation and behavioral "traction;" skills can be taught and attained but without the motivating/enabling personality traits people will not always use their skills effectively. Paris (2012) underscored, "Personnel with good core competencies, who lack the accompany core enablers, may be at risk in situations with extensive and stressful social interactions" (p. 4). Abbe et al. (2007) took this line of thought further: "When individuals are operating in these ambiguous situations [with many unknowns regarding the norms of behavior, social roles, and expectations], personality may be the dominant factor that guides individual behavior" (p. 4). Reid, Kaloydis, et al. (2012) identified six core competencies and 10 supporting enablers in the latest iteration of the DLO framework (see Table 2.4).   Reid, Kaloydis, et al. (2012) for the first time in the framework, as depicted in Table 2.4, associated supporting enablers (directly under supported core competencies) with specific core competences; some supporting enablers apply to multiple core competencies. Since 2008, significant work and steady progress has been accomplished in refining a model for military cross-cultural competence. However, shortfalls remain.
As  observed: Competence models of 3C [cross-cultural competence] share several limitations that persist within the intercultural adjustment and performance literature: (1) imprecision in defining constructs, often in the absence of operationalization; (2) conceptual overlap and unsatisfactory distinctions among key model components such as antecedents, KSAOs, and performance outcomes; (3) imprecision in specifying the causal order among constructs; and (4) imprecision or poor articulation of competencies with respect to the U.S. Military's practical selection needs due to insufficient attention to MOS [Military Occupational Specialty], rank, and service variables. These shortcomings limit the predictive and explanatory ability of existing 3C models, and consequently limit the predictive ability of existing 3C assessments, making them less than ideal for military use. (p. 4)
These measures were derived primarily from business and the medical/mental health industry, and the vast majority were self-report measures. According to , "Self-reports of cross-cultural skills and abilities have been criticized on methodological grounds and may have questionable validity" (p. 7).
However, no viable alternative exists; comprehensive peer or expert measurements do not exist and would involve significant amounts of time, effort, and potential intrusion upon, or disruption of, military operations.
Measures in these DOD-sponsored studies were selected based on the reliability and validity evidence in the research literature. Across all studies, no existing measure of cross-cultural competence was deemed sufficient to measure military cross-cultural competence as depicted in the DLO framework. Gabrenya, Griffith, et al.'s (2012) analysis was the most comprehensive, identifying 33 instruments and evaluating each instrument for face, construct, and criterion validity: In depth examination of the instruments available for assessing 3C [cross-cultural competence] competencies and enablers revealed a serious paucity of good instruments. Instruments commonly put forth as available to 3C researchers proved to be inadequate or of little use; and several of the most highly visible instruments were found to have serious shortcomings. (p. iv) Overall, these findings indicate that insufficient instrumentation is available to assess the DLO Framework, in particular its core competencies. While many candidate instruments were judged to be of insufficient quality, others were rejected because sufficient validation evidence is currently unavailable. (p. 73) Abbe et al. (2007) found none of the 11 measurements examined in their study were uniquely suited to measure military cross-culture competence: Although existing measures are available to measure some aspects of crosscultural competence, the validity of these measures has not been established for a military population. Context and population differences warrant the development of measures specifically for the population of interest, with an emphasis on constructs and methods for use in training and development. context and roles, their utility is unclear. The characteristics required for a soldier working in a cross-cultural environment are largely different from students studying in a foreign country . Although many instruments exist, researchers have little basis to choose among existing measurements because little comparison among measures has been conducted, and corresponding overlap and redundancies among them has not been established . Abbe et al. (2007) underscored the likely necessity of a tailored measurement for military purposes. An excellent example is the Global Mindset Inventory. Described as "the world's first and only psychometric assessment tool that measures and predicts performance in global leadership positions" (Mansour, Hough, & Bullough, 2010, p. 1), the Global Mindset Inventory was developed primarily from a corporate business perspective with items that include global business savvy. This inventory is a wellresearched and scientifically developed tool that can be applied to military personnel but would need to be significantly improved if adapted to a military context.

Military-Related Assessments of Cross-Cultural Competence
Three measures specifically focused on military cross-cultural competence have been developed: (a) Cross-Cultural Competence Self-Assessment (Sudduth, 2012) Furthermore, peer and supervisor rating reports were developed as a measure of performance. This allows comparison between the assessment battery results and a measure of performance. Peer evaluations were chosen as a measure of performance instead of the SJT and vignette assessment to reduce the amount of time required of participants and broaden the frame of reference. The Cl-CAT battery, without the omitted SJT and vignette assessment, takes between 30 to 40 minutes to complete, not including peer or supervisor assessments. The C-CAT displayed adequate reliability and validity, which are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. This research used the C-CAT with augmentation from specific elements of Sudduth (2012). The individual factors with this instrument are discussed in Chapter 3.

Integrative Complexity
The literature includes numerous references to the cognitive aspect of crosscultural competence, including references to metacognition (Lane, 2007), multicultural perspective taking (Paris, 2012;Reid, Kaloydis, et al., 2012;Rentsch, Gunderson, Goodwin, & Abbe, 2007), and cognitive complexity . However, none of the iterations of the DLO cross-cultural competence framework Johnston et al., 2011;Reid, Kaloydis, et al., 2012) touch upon integrative complexity, and no known assessments of cross-cultural competence include integrative complexity as an element. Integrative complexity refers to the "capacity and willingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of competing perspective on the same issue (differentiation) and to forge conceptual links among these perspectives (integration)" (Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Strefert, 1992, p. 254). According to Tadmore, Tetlock, and Peng (2009): Forty years of psychological research has shown that integrative complexity affects performance on a variety of cognitive and interpersonal tasks. . . . Within a cross-cultural context, integrative complexity reflects the degree to which people accept the reasonableness of clashing cultural perspectives on how to live and, consequently, the degree to which they are motivated to develop cognitive schemas that integrate these competing world views by explaining who different people can come to such divergent conclusions or by specifying ways of blending potentially discordant norms and values. (p. 106) Integrative complexity can be developed, and promising results (S. Savage & J. Lith, personal communication, 2013) have been reported in interventions for addressing radicalization and involvement in violent extremism such as Islamic/Al Qaida radicalization, Scottish sectarianism, and theological clashes (e.g., Northern Ireland).
There is reason to believe integrative complexity could contribute to the development of military cross-cultural competence.
It is unclear why integrative complexity is relatively absent in the cross-cultural competence literature, but there is a good reason it is not included in related assessments.
The assessment is time consuming and requires significantly more effort for both the respondents and the researchers. Two options for assessment of integrative complexity exist. The first is an in-depth interview that includes 12 questions and, on average, takes over 2.5 hours. The second includes four open-ended questions requiring three written paragraphs in response to each question. It was highly doubtful military respondents would have the time or inclination to complete either option; in addition, the scale requires obtaining generalizable results, which would most likely be overwhelming for a research team.
There are several factor assessments that have been shown to be negatively correlated with integrative complexity, namely personal need for structure and need for cognitive closure. While personal need for structure is not mentioned in the literature, need for closure is mentioned in early iterations of the framework Johnston et al., 2011). Personal need for structure was included in the research instrument as part of a cognitive styles assessment.

Cognition Styles
Cognition is a major theme running through the cross-cultural competence literature. While the three prominent military-related 3C assessments have integrated some degree of cognition (i.e., cognitive flexibility, suspending judgment, sense making) into their measurements, it seems worthwhile to focus part of the assessment on a cognitive style assessment. Thompson (1998) developed a cognitive style assessment and applied it to Canadian military forces: "Cognitive styles are differences that document individuals' preferred information gathering and decision making styles" (p. i). This cognitive style assessment included a subscale for personal need for structure, which is negatively correlated with integrative complexity. Additionally, it has subscales for personal fear of invalidity, need for cognition, and rigidity. These factors are discussed in Chapter 3.

The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Project
The focus of this dissertation is what individuals bring to cross-cultural engagement-individual traits and abilities that enable or derail competence in a crosscultural military mission. Although it is not a primary focus of this research, understanding the culture into which military personnel deploy is a mission-critical information requirement. Additionally, the local expectations placed upon leaders and how leadership effectiveness is assessed in a culture is also important to success in military cross-cultural engagements. For these reasons, a summary of the GLOBE project is included in this literature review.
The GLOBE project is perhaps the most comprehensive cross-cultural competence research effort ever conducted and "could be considered the Manhattan Project of the study of cultures in relation to the concepts of leadership" (House et al., 2004, p. ix (House et al., 2014).
Although focused on three non-military industries (financial services, food processing, and telecommunications), the insight generated from the GLOBE project should be leveraged by military personnel who cross cultures and should be well understood by military personnel who have a primary mission of crossing cultures (e.g., within DOD: Foreign Area Officers, AF-PAK Asia-Pacific Hands, and within SOF; U.S.

Army Special Forces and Military Information Support Operations/Psychological
Operations, and SOCOM Foreign Liaison Officers). The GLOBE project can be used as a guide for crossing cultures; it provides a structure to observe and interact within a different culture. This structure applies directly to the findings related to the C3 attribute of cultural relativism.

The GLOBE Framework
The GLOBE project identified 10 cultural clusters, nine major attributes of culture, and six major global leader behaviors (see Tables 2.5 Knowing what members of a foreign culture consider to be effective or ineffective behaviors can improve conflict resolution and cross-cultural performance (House et al., 2004). Cultural clusters can provide a useful framework for managing the complexities of multinational military operations. House et al. (2004) provided empirical findings for the nine cultural attributes. The comparisons of high and low scoring cultures for these attributes is instructive and can help set expectations for training and development, a key aspect of military cross-cultural missions.

Leadership and Culture
Views of the importance, value, style, or delivery of leadership vary across cultures (House et al., 2004). However, there are some common perspectives on what constitutes good or poor leadership: "The portrait of a leader who is universally viewed as effective is clear; the person should possess the highest levels of integrity and engage in Charismatic/Value-Based behaviors while building effective teams" (House et al., 2004, p. 678). Conversely, "self-protective and malevolent (attributes or activities) are universally viewed as impediments to effective leadership" (House et al., 2004, p. 678 For instance, military and civilian service members who enforce [United Nations]-mandated peacekeeping operations should find it useful to understand indigenous cultural dimensions and their effective leadership profiles to lead and function successfully within a foreign population. It seems that this information would be especially helpful to them because they act not only in the cultural context of their member nation, but also have the extra burden of a military culture to uphold. (p. 709)

Literature Review Summary
A review of the literature underscored that culture is fluid both conceptually and in practice. It is enduring yet evolving. People live culturally, in that culture can be seen as sense-making strategies or an operational code implemented by groups of people.

Culture defines a group's range of ideas (what is important and unimportant) and actions
(what is right and wrong) as well as how, when, and from whom in and outside the group actions are appropriate or inappropriate. These rules are flexible; culture also helps interpret when to implement rules and when they might not apply. All of this makes crossing cultures exceptionally challenging.
The relationship between the military and the study and use of cultural insight is ancient, controversial, and tenuous. Some have rejected any association between military efforts and anthropology and culture. Others have argued increased cultural knowledge and insight can minimize casualties, shorten conflicts, and help restore peace. The U.S. This literature review has established competence is a set of behaviors of excellent performance-behaviors requiring knowledge, skills and abilities, and complementary personality traits as well as affect and motivation. For the purposes of this research, cross-cultural competence is defined as appropriately and effectively acting in a culturally complex environment to achieve mission results-through the ability to quickly and accurately understand and respond to cultural dynamics. Cross-cultural competence requires the recognition and acceptance of diversity and conversion of knowledge into action through cultivation of positive behaviors, adaptability, and integration of awareness into action.
The DLO cross-cultural competence framework (see Table 2.4) was the latest iteration of a C3 model when this study began and is the foundation for military-focused C3 assessments. The C3 assessment used in this research is a combination of three DOD sponsored assessment efforts: C3 Self-Assessment (Sudduth, 2012), C3 Inventory  and the Cross-Cultural Assessment Tool (McCloskey et al., 2012).
In Table 2.8, I identify the source of 11 specific C3 instruments used in this study. Cultural Interest Note: *The lie scale is not considered an aspect of cross-cultural competence but is used in the C3 assessment to identify potential outlier responses.
The literature has numerous references to the cognitive aspects of military crosscultural competence, including metacognition, multicultural perspective taking, and cognitive complexity. However, neither existing frameworks nor assessments address this aspect of C3. Integrative complexity is the ability to acknowledge competing perspectives on the same issues as legitimate and the ability to connect multiple and often competing perspectives into a coherent frame. Integrative complexity is a task of differentiation and integration. Tadmore, Tetlock, and Peng (2009) highlighted how integrative complexity can help in a cross-cultural context. Because assessing integrative complexity is challenging and time-consuming for both study participants and researchers, cognition styles are used as a proxy. Thompson (1998) provided four instruments to assess cognition styles: personal need for structure, fear of invalidity, need for cognition, and rigidity. Thompson was the first to explore correlations between cognition styles and assessment factors in cross-cultural competence.

METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, I review the context and significance of this research, the research objectives, and the research design and methodology. Organized around two primary research questions, I define the study populations and samples, summarize the research instruments and instrument procedures, and present data analyses. The chapter closes with a review of research limitations.

Overview
The research was conducted through two parallel studies with integrated analysis across both studies. In the first study, I examined the SEAL selection course and established an attribute profile of recent graduates. In the second study, I examined experienced SEAL performance through an assessment of cross-cultural competence factors and established attribute profiles of (a) superior cross-cultural assessment scorers and (b) substandard cross-cultural assessment scorers. Institutional Review Board and Navy SEAL senior leader approval was obtained prior to the research.

Research Foundation
In this section, I review the objectives and context of this research. This research is unique in that it is the only known study focused on Navy SEAL cross-cultural competence and the only known study of cross-cultural competence that uses cognition style factors as independent variables.

Research Objectives
The goal of this research was to inform and potentially improve effectiveness of U.S Navy SEAL and other SOF cross-cultural-related selection, training, education and development, and personnel assignment. I sought to identify key attributes among SEALs that are correlated with performance in cross-cultural environments. Two supporting objectives were pursued to identify a baseline starting point and a benchmark objective of SEAL cross-cultural-related factors. The first supporting objective was to determine the attribute profile of recent graduates from SEAL selection based on mean scores across two assessment tools. The second supporting objective was to identify, in the SEAL community, personal attributes (demographic and cognition style factors) correlated with superior and substandard performances in cross-cultural competence factors.
This knowledge could assist with the design of SOF training and education focused on cross-cultural capabilities and the measurement of related program effectiveness. Comparing recent SEAL selection graduate profiles with detected attributes related to success or underperformance in cross-cultural environments could also help identify and prioritize areas of training and education to move recent graduates and low assessment scorers toward the level of cross-cultural superior assessment scorers.
Furthermore, insight into cross-cultural superior-performer attributes may assist with improving personnel assignments to positions requiring high cross-cultural capabilities. The historical mission focus and related organizational and cultural preference for minimizing contact with the populace stands in contrast to the evolution of the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These conflicts transitioned from unilateral U.S. action to partnered action with a U.S. lead, and later to partner Iraqi-or Afghan-led, action.

Research Context
Furthermore, the counter-insurgency doctrine (Petraeus, 2006) applied to these wars emphasized a population-centric approach through advising and assisting local defense forces and engaging and protecting the civil population. Outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, the primary special operations mission during this same timeframe was consistent-to advise, assist, and train with partner forces to increase their internal capacity to address threats to partner nation stability. Despite a preference for more direct action assignments, Navy SEALs routinely conduct advise and assist missions. The USSOCOM has emphasized increased focus on relationships with international and U.S. interagency partners in its USSOCOM 2020 strategy (USSOCOM, 2012a). All of this highlights a requirement for cross-cultural capability that is not part of the traditional SEAL focus or culture (Turnley, 2011). Culture and focus are established at the selection course and reinforced in SEAL platoons.
When SEALs complete the selection course and a follow-on qualification course, they are assigned to a SEAL platoon. This small tactical element is composed of 21 men ranging in rank from midgrade enlisted personnel (E-5) to junior officers (O-3). Women are eligible for assignment as SEALs, but no woman has yet screened for the SEAL selection course. Depending on the mission, a SEAL platoon may be distributed into multiple smaller elements (four to eight men) or stay together as an integral unit of 21.
During this research, SEALs were assigned to missions throughout the Pacific, Africa, the Middle East, South America, Europe, and Afghanistan. In each location, mission assignments varied in their degrees of cross-cultural interaction. For example, some platoons or smaller task elements were imbedded with partner forces, having close, daily cross-cultural contact for the entire deployment. These platoons had a mission of advise and assist, essentially training and mentoring their partner forces. Other SEAL elements were assigned contingency response missions, acting as ready forces for raids and hostage rescues. These contingency forces had only episodic interactions with partner forces for relative short exercise periods (4 to 8 weeks at a time).
While the degree of cross-cultural interaction across different SEAL platoons may vary widely, the key dependent variable under study is relative superior or substandard cross-cultural competence factors across the study population. The assignment of different missions may create a dichotomy of perspectives with high cross-cultural engagement platoons seeing their roles, their partners, and themselves differently than those assigned a contingency mission. While this was not extensively explored in this study, the potential impact of this difference was integrated into the research data analysis through demographic information used as independent variables.

Significance of the Research
This research is the first known effort in the Navy and SOF or in the academic community to assess cross-cultural competence-related attributes of Navy SEALs.
Additionally, no other known study had cognition style factors as independent variables related to performance in cross-cultural competence factor assessments. The identification of key attributes that contribute to successful cross-cultural performance and a baseline profile of recent SEAL selection graduates will help establish both a benchmark objective (cross-cultural superior performer profile) and a "starting point" of SEAL cross-cultural capability (recent SEAL graduate profile). Results from this research can inform cross-cultural training and development initiatives, contributing to increased program effectiveness. Additionally, research results can assist in identifying critical training requirements and priorities for significant differences between SEAL selection graduates and SEAL cross-cultural top assessment scorers. Furthermore, the identification of attributes associated with SEAL superior performance in a cross-cultural environment can assist SEAL leadership in identifying personnel best suited for assignment to positions requiring an ability to excel in cross-cultural environments.

Research Questions
In

Research Design
In this section, I review the research methodology, instruments, and procedures used to assess factors related to cross-cultural competence and cognition styles.

Research Methodology
A quantitative research design was used to explore common attributes among recent SEAL selection course graduates and common attributes among experienced SEALs who are superior or substandard assessment scorers, relative to scores across the experienced SEAL population in the study. Two parallel studies were conducted, one for each area of focus: (a) recent SEAL selection graduates and (b) experienced SEALS.
Throughout, I used post-event observation through an identical battery of assessment instruments discussed in the following sections.

Research Instruments
Two web-based self-assessment instruments and a demographic survey were administered online for both studies. These instruments were given to all recent SEAL training graduates and a subset of recently redeployed, experienced SEALs. To ensure confidentiality, a unique identifier code was assigned to each participant and applied to each of the instruments to protect the identities of participants.
An additional instrument designed to identify superior and substandard crosscultural assessment scorers was used in the cross-cultural study on experienced SEALs.
However, this methodology was flawed and did not render useful results. The instrument was intended to identify superior and substandard assessment scorers in the study population; most SEALs identified by their peers as superior and substandard assessment scorers did not participate in the study. Although 157 individuals were identified as superior or substandard cross-cultural assessment scorers, only eight were study participants. Because of this design flaw, instead of using peer assessments, superior and substandard assessment scorers were identified using cross-cultural competence and cognition style factors scores. For each factor, those who scored in the top 15th percentile were deemed superior assessment scorers, and those scoring in the bottom 15th percentile were assessed as substandard.

Instruments
There were two instruments common across both the SEAL selection and the experienced SEAL studies. These instruments include cross-cultural competence factors and decision style factors.  Cultural relativism refers to an ability to recognize and accept cultural differences and the corresponding alternative approaches and responses that different cultures engender (McCloskey et al., 2012). This subscale maps to the DLO framework supporting enablers of emotional stability, tolerance for uncertainty, and openness to experience. This subscale has 10 items and a Cronbach's alpha of .80.

Cross
Cultural acuity involves the ability to accurately assess the perspectives of others, situational dynamics, and the impact of cultural actions on the broader mission (McCloskey et al., 2012). This subscale maps to the core competencies of cultural Interpersonal skills focus on the ability to "consistently present oneself in a manner that promotes positive short and long term interactions to achieve mission objectives" (McCloskey et al., 2012, p. 14) and is primarily mapped to the framework's core competency of intercultural interaction. This subscale has 13 items and a Cronbach's alpha of .87.
The next five subscales are from Sudduth (2012) who did not report Cronbach's alpha for subscales. The first one, stress resilience (Sudduth, 2012), represents the ability to tolerate emotionally exhausting, frustrating, or shocking circumstances. Resilience is an enabler to the core competence of self-regulation in the DLO cross-cultural competence framework. Those with high stress resilience, despite repeated setbacks, failures, and obstacles to success, can maintain task focus and enthusiasm. This subscale has six items.
Inclusiveness, an enabler to core competence of cultural reasoning in the DLO framework, is the tendency to accept and include people and things based on commonalities and an appreciation for differences (Sudduth, 2012). This subscale has seven items.
Inquisitiveness is a 6-item subscale focused on the "tendency to take an active pursuit in the understanding of ideas, values, norms, situations, and behaviors that are new and different" (Sudduth, 2012, p. 1). It is measured using a social curiosity scale (Renner, 2006). Inquisitiveness is found in the DLO framework as an enabler to cultural learning, one of the six core competences.
Optimism is the "expectation of positive outcomes. An individual high in optimism views problems as solvable challenges and as exciting learning opportunities" (Sudduth, 2012, p. 1). Optimism was included as a core enabler in the resilience factors from Johnston et al. (2010) cross-cultural framework. This subscale has six items.
Suspending judgment is the ability to withhold judgment until adequate information becomes available and to perceive information neutrally (Sudduth, 2012).
Suspending judgment was also included in the Johnston et al. (2010) framework. This subscale has five items and was adapted from a scale to measure professional skepticism (Hurtt, 2010).
The final two subscales are from . The first one, selfefficacy, is the belief one has the ability to reach a particular goal or the power to produce a desired effect. Bandura's (1997) focus on self-efficacy and his social cognitive theory is foundational to this concept. Self-efficacy is the only enabler to map to five of the six core competencies in the latest DLO framework (Reid, Kaloydis, et al., 2012). This subscale (Ross, Thronson, et al., 2010) has eight items and a Cronbach's alpha of .86. Figure 3.2. Thompson (1998) developed a cognitive style assessment that included subscales from the literature on cognition styles. These subscales include 66 items. This cognitive style assessment took approximately 45 minutes to complete. The cognitive style assessment used in this research is found in Appendix C. As discussed in Chapter 2, cognition style factors are seen as enablers to cross-cultural competence Reid, Kaloydis, et al., 2012). However, except for this study, there are no known studies that attempt to correlate cognition style factors with cross-cultural competence. The first subscale, personal need for structure, is negatively correlated with integrative complexity, which affects cross-cultural competence (Tadmore et al., 2009).

Cognition style factors. Cognition style factors are depicted in
Personal need for structure is a "need to have some guiding knowledge or answer on a topic; any answer being preferable to no answer at all" (Thompson, Naccarato, & Parker, 1998, p. 2). A person high in personal need for structure would be troubled and uncomfortable with ambiguity and grey areas and would prefer clarity and structure in most situations. Neuberg and Newsom (1993) demonstrated individuals high in personal need for structure were more likely to arrange social and nonsocial information in simple, Personal fear of invalidity raises concerns with the possibility of making errors, potentially leading to vacillation between options, longer response times, and lower subjective confidence in their own judgments . This subscale has 14 items and a Cronbach's alpha between .76 and .83 across the 14 items.
Need for cognition indicates enjoyment and a desire for effortful cognitive tasks; those with high need for cognition see difficult cognitive tasks as a challenge rather than stressful events (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). At face value, Thompson's (1998) description of need for cognition appears to be an important factor in cross-cultural competence, and my data analysis described in Chapter 4 highlights a strong correlation of need for cognition to every cross-cultural competence factor. According to Thompson (1998) Thompson's (1998) study.
Rigidity is a dogged persistence in responses that, while perhaps suitable in other contexts, no longer appear to be adequate to achieve desired goals or solve current problems (Wesley, 1953). Those high in rigidity likely will be unable to adapt to new or inconsistent information about a topic and could lead to an inability to reconcile inconsistencies. This subscale has 22 items and a Cronbach's alpha between .58 and .73 across the 22 items for the various populations of Thompson's (1998) study.

Common Instrument Procedures
All the instruments were web based and delivered online. The instruments could be taken in any order and each assessment took no more than 1 hour. The combined time of all instruments was less than 2 hours. It was not required that all instruments be taken at the same time. As long as the respondents had not had significant transitions into news role that might have altered their perceptions of themselves, their teammates, or their deployments, it is unlikely that an individual's scores would change over a period of weeks. No respondents in this study had significant post-deployment transitions; upon return from deployment, SEAL platoon members take leave (e.g., vacation) and begin individual professional development courses.

Common Data Analysis Procedures
Instruments did not allow questions to be skipped and were not considered complete unless all questions were answered. A 100% response was required. If only one of the two instruments were completed, follow-up with individual respondents were made to encourage completion. When follow-up failed to affect the completion of both instruments, the data from the sole instrument completed was used for cohort profiles and correlation of the instrument variables and cross-cultural assessment performance.

SEAL Selection Course Study
The first research question was: What is the common attribute profile for recent SEAL selection graduates? This provided the starting point of the study. The independent variables were the results of the assessment instruments, and the dependent variable was successful graduation. Distribution (mean) analysis was used to determine the cohort attribute profile. graduating; this was the population who were administered the instruments.

Population and Sample
One hundred and sixty-four newly participated SEALs constituted the final sample of this study. While 100% of the SEAL graduates (a total of 180) participated in the study, 30 were removed from the study for failure to meet the lie scale criteria-a total score less than 15 across the five items on a 1-6 scale for each item. An additional four recent graduates were eliminated from the study for failure to complete portions of the study. Therefore, the sample included 164 newly minted SEALs out of a total population of 180 (81%).

Instrument Procedures
The links to the three instruments (biographical, cognition styles, and crosscultural competence) and instructions were emailed to the class leader (senior student officer) of each class. Each class leader passed on the instructions and links to the entire class and was the point of coordination for any follow-up with class members on incomplete elements of the instruments. It was explained participation was voluntary, but, given any task, a SEAL class is driven to complete it in due order.
The SEAL selection candidates took a biographical survey and cross-cultural competence and cognitive style assessments as part of their administrative week prior to graduation. For Classes 300 through 302, already graduated, the instruments were completed whenever possible during their SQT.

Data Analysis
The regression model for data analysis in the first study involved common characteristics among SEAL selection course graduates and was represented as follows: The SQT students, the "finishing school," and BUD/S graduates were combined to form the population of selection and assessment graduates. The SQT students (Classes 299 to 302) and BUD/S graduates (Classes 302 to 305) were also analyzed separately and compared with each other to see if there was a post-BUD/S graduation change.

Experienced SEAL Study
The second

Population
The particular focus of the second study (cross-cultural competence assessment performance) was on SEALs at the lowest echelon, the SEAL platoon; this task element has the greatest opportunity for cross-cultural interaction. The target population of this study was defined as all U.S. Navy SEALs assigned to SEAL platoons. There are eight SEAL teams in the U.S. Navy. Each SEAL team has seven platoons. A platoon consists of 21 men: three officers and 18 enlisted personnel. The target population of this study was 1,176 SEALs (eight teams of seven platoons, each with 21 men).

Sample
The total population during the research window was 588 platoon members from 28 platoons. This number includes all SEAL platoon members returning from deployment between December 2013 to April 2014. Four SEAL teams returned from deployment during the study period. As such, the target population was 50% of the total population. A total of 294 experienced SEALs were in the target population, and 89 experienced SEALs constituted the final study sample. The sample constitutes 30% (89 of 294) of the target population and 15% (89 of 588) of the total population.
As noted in the dissertation proposal limitations discussion, SEALs may be "survey saturated" as efforts to assess their post-deployment physical, mental, and social (family and close relationships) health have significantly increased over the period of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This saturation likely reduced the response rate. To counteract this, I personally briefed returning SEAL teams and frequently engaged with the team executive officer (second in charge) in an attempt to increase response rates. As seen in the first study of newly graduated SEALs, assessment and selection graduates do not suffer from similar survey saturation and had a high response rate as they tend to be eager to please as the "newly minted SEALs."

Instrument Procedures
The SEAL team executive officers (XOs) were emailed the link to the demographic questionnaire (see Appendix D) and the two assessment instruments (crosscultural and cognitive factors) within 2 months of their return from deployment. The XOs distributed the links and instructions to their teams and encouraged participation. I routinely engaged with the XOs and visited the teams to explain the purpose and importance of the study.
As previously discussed, all platoon members were asked to rate their peers in cross-cultural competence using a peer rating process from were used as discriminators of performance.

Data Analysis
Regression models for data analysis in the second study involved common characteristics among superior and substandard assessment scorers in cross-cultural environments and were represented as follows: CCS = a0 + a1 A1 + a2A23CA + a3A3CFA CCP = a0 + a1 A1 + a2A23CA + a3A3CFA Cognition + Rigidity

Limitations of the Research
As discussed in Chapter 2, culture and the competence required to cross cultures are complex constructs and difficult to precisely define and assess.  reviewed 34 instruments used to assess cross-cultural competence in nonmilitary contexts and found both the competency models that provided the foundation for the instruments and the instruments themselves wanting. The assessments used in this study, designed for a military context, suffered from the limitations that  highlighted: I used self-report methods to obtain declarative, cognitively accessible, and self-referent information, which can be misrepresented. As discussed in Chapter 2, I used a lie scale meant to address this limitation. The lie scale assessment identified 30 recently graduated SEALs (and no experienced SEALs) as potentially "faking it"; these individuals were removed from the study. Regardless, the potential for respondent manipulation of the results still existed.
No cross-cultural assessment has been independently correlated with crosscultural performance. While previous academic research has included the creation of the original feeder instruments, there are no independent studies that correlate the assessment instruments in the field of cross-cultural performance. My research has a theoretical foundation that has not been scrutinized by researchers assessing actual cross-cultural competence assessment scorers; due to the shortfall in peer assessments this was a limitation in this study. Demographic and cognition style factors were used as independent variables.
Highly significant correlations contributed to predictive models for each of the 11 crosscultural competence factors. I close the chapter with a detailed summary of the data analysis and conclude with the story found in the data.

Demographics
A total of 253 SEALs participated in this study. This number does not include data collected but excluded from analysis. Ten experienced SEALs completed only the demographic survey and did not complete any part of the decision styles or cross cultural competence surveys; they were thus eliminated from the study. Additionally, 30 participants, all new graduates, were eliminated from the study because their lie scale scores on a scale of 1 to 6 exceeded a mean of 4; this mirrors the methodology used by  and developed by Webster and Kruglanski (1994). It is not surprising that slightly more than 15% of the newly minted SEALs felt some desire to complete the surveys out of class loyalty and a compulsion to complete any assigned task, but they focused less than the necessary energy to read and digest the items or felt compelled to show positive faces. Alternatively, they may have been extreme narcissists, as items include statements such as "I have never hurt another person's feelings" and "I have never been late for an appointment." However, if this were the case, I would expect this narcissist flag to be reflected in at least some of the experienced SEALs.

Survey Methodology
Two web-based, self-assessment instruments, totaling 153 individual questions, and a demographic survey were administered online to six classes of newly minted SEALs and experienced SEALs from a subset of four SEAL teams recently returned from deployment. The total time for completing the assessments for each participant was less than 2 hours. In Chapter 3, I reviewed the survey process and procedures in depth.

Experience, Age, Rank, and Time in Service
Study participants included 164 (64.8%) newly graduated SEALs and 89 (35.2%) experienced SEALs. One variable, SEAL experience, correlated to one cross-cultural competence factor, suspending judgment. This correlation will be discussed later in the chapter. Except for this instance, SEAL experience was not found to correlate to cognition styles factors or any other cross-cultural competence factor.
While it may seem participants of this study skew young, the mean age across all SOF was 29 (USSOCOM, 2019), and SEALs are generally younger than their Army counterparts. Consistent with nearly 65% of participants being newly minted SEALs, 68.5% were in their twenties (see    As depicted in Figure 4.4, 99 (39.1%) officers and 153 (60.5%) enlisted SEALs were among participants. Being an officer was found to correlate to the suspending judgment factor of cross-cultural competence and will be discussed later in this chapter.
Neither status as an officer nor enlisted service member was found to correlate to cognition styles factors or any other cross-cultural competence factor.

Language and Cultural Training.
A majority (59.7%) of participants had less than 1 week of cultural training, and 21% had 2-8 weeks of cultural training. An even larger majority (64.4%) had no language training, while fewer than 20% had extended language training (9 or more weeks). The distribution of study by cultural and language training is shown in Figure 4

Deployment Experience
Nearly three-fourths (72.5%) of experienced SEALs had two or three deployments, while 16% had only one deployment; the rest had four or more deployments (see Figure 4.7). On their most recent deployments, nearly 60% of participants completed routine SEAL deployments of 6-8 months; another third completed short deployments of less than 6 months, and almost 10% completed extended deployments of more than 8 months (see   Experienced SEALs were nearly evenly distributed across the spectrum of task element sizes (see Figure 4.9). Slightly more than 18% were operating in elements of four personnel or less, while 12% were operating in squad sizes of seven to 10 personnel, and 14.5% were in elements of 11 to 16 personnel. Nearly 23% were operating in SEAL platoon strengths of 16 to 21 personnel, and slightly more than 25% were operating in larger than platoon strength (21 or more personnel).

Cross-Cultural Competence Attribute Profile
The attribute profiles in this research include cognition style factors and crosscultural competence factors. I have used radar charts to portray the mean scores of cognition style and cross-cultural competence factors.

Cognition Style Factors
The independent variables and range of responses for each cognition style factor are shown in Table 4.1. Each variable used a Likert scale where the minimum response (0) represents strongly disagree and the maximum response (6 or 8) represents strongly agree. The differences in ranges are based upon the origin and development of the scale by Thompson (1998).
Personal need for structure is a factor that represents the need to have some guiding knowledge or answer on a topic with any answer being preferable to no answer at all. This instrument contained 12 items that comprise this factor. In an ambiguous environment, generally, the lower the score, the better.  Need for cognition is a factor that indicates enjoyment and a desire for effortful cognitive tasks. Those high in need for cognition see difficult cognitive task as a challenge rather than a stressful event. Eighteen items comprised this factor in this instrument. The higher the score, the better, although those high in need for cognition are sometimes slow to make decisions or bog down collaborative conversations in excessive discussion of the facts (Petty, Brinol, Loersch, & McCaslin, 2009).
Rigidity represents dogged persistence in responses that, while perhaps suitable in other contexts, no longer appear to be adequate to achieve desired goals or solve current problems. Individuals high in rigidity are often unable to adapt to new or inconsistent information about a topic, which could lead to an inability to reconcile inconsistencies.
This instrument contained 22 items that comprise the factor. In an ambiguous environment, generally, the lower the score, the better.
Personal fear of invalidity is a factor which raises concerns with the possibility of making errors, potentially leading to vacillation between options, longer response times, and lower subjective confidence in their own judgments. This instrument contained 14 items that comprised this factor. Generally, the lower the score, the better; however, an extremely low score may indicate overconfidence or hubris.

Cross-Cultural Competence Factors
The dependent variables that comprise the cross-cultural competence factors are presented in Table 4.2 along with the ranges of responses on a Likert scale where the minimum response (0) is strongly disagree and the maximum response (6) is strongly agree. The cross-cultural competence factors and definitions include the following: • Relationship orientation (7 items) is a factor that reflects the general tendency to value personal relationships.
• Cultural acuity (8 items) represents the ability to accurately assess the perspectives of others, situational dynamics, and the impact of cultural actions on the broader mission.
• Cultural relativism (10 items) reflects an ability to recognize and accept cultural differences and the corresponding alternative approaches and response that different cultures engender.
• Interpersonal skills (13 items) refer to the ability to consistently present oneself in a manner that promotes positive short-and long-term interactions to achieve mission objectives.
• Cultural interest (six items) is a factor that assesses the willingness to learn about and engage with the local population in pursuit of mission success.
• Inquisitiveness (six items) represents the tendency to take an active pursuit in the understanding of ideas, values, norms, situations, and behaviors that are new and different.
• Suspending judgment (five items) refers to the ability to withhold judgment until adequate information becomes available and to perceive information neutrally.
• Optimism (six items) is a factor that represents the expectation of positive outcomes. High scores indicate viewing problems as solvable challenges and as exciting learning opportunities.
• Stress resilience (six items) represents the ability to tolerate emotionally exhausting, frustrating, or shocking circumstances.
• Inclusiveness (seven items) refers to the tendency to accept and include people and things based on commonalities and an appreciation of differences • Self-efficacy (eight items) is a construct that expresses the belief that one has the ability to reach a particular goal or the power to produce a desired effect.
The cross-cultural competence means of all SEALs in the study were compared with maximum scores on each of these factors. This comparison is shown in Figure 4.14.
This cross-cultural competence instrument is a combination of items from previous studies, and there are no comparison groups with which to compare the scores of the SEALS in this study. Figure 4.14. SEAL cross-cultural competence mean scores.

Research Question Findings
In this section, I present the findings as they relate to each research question, which were as follows:   In cognition style factors, the newly minted SEAL mean score is very close to stars in need for cognition. Again, this is the most critical cognition style factor, with strong correlation to all of the cross-cultural competence factors. Additionally, the newly minted SEAL means are close to star assessment scorers in personal need for structure and rigidity. There is a major difference in personal fear of invalidity between newly minted SEALs and stars. Experienced SEALs in the top 15th percentile registered the lowest possible score for personal fear of invalidity, which may raise concerns about hubris and overconfidence; newly minted SEAL mean scores were in the middle of the scale. This highlights that new SEALs are very well positioned for cross-cultural focused missions with strong cognition style factor scores that are correlated with top performance in the cross-cultural competence factors.
In cross-cultural competence factors, newly minted SEAL means lagged behind stars but have strong showings in self-efficacy, stress resilience, cultural interest, and cultural acuity. The largest gap between newly minted SEAL means and stars was in suspending judgment. Table 4 Newly minted SEAL stars clustered in interpersonal skills, cultural interest, inquisitiveness, stress resilience, and self-efficacy. The cross-cultural competence strengths of newly minted SEALs (highlighted in underlined italics font), identified by a disproportionate number of stars-a greater than 60% skew toward stars and away from dogs-may indicate that newly minted SEALs, especially those with high scores in need for cognition, may be better positioned than the average experienced SEAL to perform well engaging with foreign partners. Additionally, building task elements with an eye toward cross-cultural competence, and not just experience, would likely improve SEAL interactions and success with foreign partners.
Newly minted SEAL dogs were prominent (75% skew toward dogs, highlighted in bold font) in suspending judgment, the ability to withhold judgment until adequate information becomes available and to perceive information neutrally. This result may warrant some focused attention in SEAL training. Additionally, both newly minted seals (56%) and experienced SEALs (63.6%) were skewed toward dogs in inclusiveness.
While not part of the dissertation questions, comparing attribute profiles of newly minted SEALs and experienced SEALs and officers and enlisted provides additional insight. These comparisons are presented in Figures 4.17    The final comparison of attribute profiles presented in this section is one between SEAL officers and enlisted. As depicted in Figures 4.19 and 4.20, there are minimal differences between the profiles of officers and enlisted. Officers' means are slightly higher in need for structure, inclusiveness, and cultural relativism and slightly lower in stress resilience. The latter would come to no surprise to enlisted SEALs.

Research Question 2
The second primary question of this research is focused on the attribute profiles of superior and substandard scorers for all SEALs in the study. The attribute profiles of these two groups are presented in Figures 4.21 and 4.22. Using these two performance categories (star and dog), I used binary logistical analysis with cross cultural competence factors as dependent variables to explore any correlations between demographic or cognition style factors and cross-cultural competence factors. The cross-cultural competence models identify cognition style and demographic factors that showed significant correlation to cross-cultural competence.  because of their significant correlation to interpersonal skills. The ranges of predictability for the variability in a particular cross-cultural competence factor, as projected by the Cox and Snell and Nagerlkerke R squares, range from 20.1-26.9% for relationship orientation to 52.7-79.8% for self-efficacy. There were five cross-cultural competence factors where the model held only need for cognition as a significant factor. These results are shown in Table 4.4. For the other six cross-cultural competence factors, need for cognition combined with at least one other cognition style factor as significant independent variables.
Personal fear of invalidity was significant in five of the cross-cultural competence factors while rigidity was significant in three cross-cultural competence factors. Personal need for structure was significant in only one cross-cultural competence factor. Suspending judgment was the only cross-cultural competence factor where demographic variables were found to be significant; experienced SEALs and officers were significant variables.
These details are presented in Table 4 Table 4.5

Cross-Cultural Competence Model Where More Than Need for Cognition Is Significant
Note. SR = stress resilience; CA = cultural acuity; IS = interpersonal skills; CR = cultural relativism; SE = self-efficacy; SJ = suspending judgment; EXP = experienced SEALs; NFC = need for cognition; PFI = personal fear of invalidity; R = rigidity; PNS = personal need for structure.  the relationship orientation factor of cross-cultural competence. As shown in Table 4.6, only one of the four independent variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model. Need for cognition displayed an odds ratio of 2.91. This indicates the odds of being a super star in relationship orientation increase by a factor of 2.91 if a person scores one point higher in need for cognition.  percentile. This model on a whole explained between 50.3% (Cox and Snell R 2 ) and 67.1% of the variance between SEAL all-stars and substandard assessment scorers in the cultural acuity factor of cross-cultural competence. As shown in Table 4  Cultural relativism. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, chi-square (4, n = 60) = 26.748, p < .001, indicating the model distinguished between SEALs in the top 15th percentile of cultural relativism and those in the bottom 15th percentile. This model on a whole explained between 36% and 48% of the variance between SEAL all-stars and dogs scorers in the cultural relativism factor of cross-cultural competence.

Regression analysis details.
As shown in Table 4     percentile. This model on a whole explained between 49% and 65.3% of the variance between SEAL super stars and substandard assessment scorers in the cultural interest factor of cross-cultural competence. As shown in Table 4.10, only one of the four independent variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model.  Inquisitiveness. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, chi-square (4, n = 80) = 29.374, p < .001, indicating the model distinguished between SEALs in the top 15th percentile of inquisitiveness and those in the bottom 15th percentile. This model on a whole explained between 30.7% and 41.4% of the variance between SEAL super stars and substandard assessment scorers in the inquisitiveness factor of cross-cultural competence. As shown in Table 4.11, only one of the four independent variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model.  Optimism. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, chi-square (4, n = 70) = 19.57, p = .001, indicating the model distinguished between SEALs in the top 15th percentile of optimism and those in the bottom 15th percentile.
This model on a whole between 24.4% and 32.5% of the variance between SEAL allstars and substandard assessment scorers in the optimism factor of cross-cultural competence. As shown in Table 4.12, only one of the four independent variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model. Need for cognition displayed an odds ratio of 2.40. The odds of being an all-star in optimism increased by a factor of 2.40 if a person scored one point higher in need for cognition. Stress resilience. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, chi-square (4, n = 80) = 19.570, p = .001, indicating the model distinguished between SEALs in the top 15th percentile of stress resilience and those in the bottom 15th percentile. This model on a whole explained between 24.4% and 32.5% of the variance between SEAL super stars and substandard assessment scorers in the stress resilience factor of cross-cultural competence. As shown in Table 4.13, two of the four independent variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model. Need for cognition displayed an odds ratio of 11.32. The odds of a person being a star in stress resilience increased by a factor of 11.32 if a person scored one point higher in need for cognition. Personal fear of invalidity displayed an odds ratio of .02, indicating a negative correlation; the odds of a person being an all-star in stress resilience increased by a factor of 62.5 if a person scored one point less in personal fear of invalidity. percentile. This model on a whole explained between 32.6% and 43.9% of the variance between SEAL all-stars and substandard assessment scorers in the inclusiveness factor of cross-cultural competence. As shown in Table 4.14, only one of the four independent variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model. Need for cognition displayed an odds ratio of 5.74. The odds of a person being an all-star in inclusiveness increased by a factor of 5.74 if a person scored one point higher in need for cognition. Self-efficacy. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, chi-square (4, n = 91) = 68.1, p < .001, indicating the model distinguished between SEALs in the top 15th percentile of self-efficacy and those in the bottom 15th percentile.
This model on a whole explained between 52.7% and 79.8% of the variance between SEAL super stars and substandard assessment scorers in the self-efficacy factor of crosscultural competence. As shown in Table 4    The two demographic variables were also found to make a unique statistically significant contribution to the model. Experienced SEALs displayed an odds ratio of .023. The odds of being an all-star in suspending judgment increased by a factor of 43.47 if a SEAL is a newly minted SEAL. Officers displayed an odds ratio of 6.28. The odds of being an all-star in suspending judgment increased by a factor of 6.3 if a SEAL is an officer, rather than an enlisted.

The Story in the Data
I am aware of no other study that has assessed a cognition styles model for correlation with cross-cultural competence. I pursued this avenue of study because I was interested in the importance of integrative complexity-the capacity and willingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of competing perspectives on the same issue (differentiation) and to forge conceptual links among these perspectives (Seudfeld, Tetlock, & Strefert, 1992). Tadmore et al. (2009) placed integrative complexity into the context of crosscultural competence: Within a cross-cultural context, integrative complexity reflects the degree to which people accept the reasonableness of clashing cultural perspectives on how to live and, consequently, the degree to which they are motivated to develop cognitive schemas that integrate these competing world views by explaining how different people can come to such divergent conclusions or by specifying ways of blending potentially discordant norms and values. (p. 106) Because assessment of integrative complexity is onerous and time consuming for study participants, cognition styles were used as a proxy. Personal need for structure has been shown to negatively correlate to integrative complexity. Need for cognitive closure has also been shown to negatively correlate to integrative complexity. Furthermore, need for cognitive closure and need for cognition are closely related (Suedfeld, 2009). The cognition style factors used in this study-personal need for structure, need for cognition, rigidity, and personal fear of invalidity-were used by Thompson (1998) and applied in a study using Canadian military forces and University of Arizona students.
Using binary logistical regression analysis against the dependent variable of superior and substandard assessment scorers, I developed predictive models for the 11 cross-cultural competence factors. Ten of 11 of the predictive models used only the four cognition style factors and in all but one case were found to be worthwhile models with highly significant goodness of fit, as demonstrated through the omnibus tests for model coefficients and the Hosmer and Lemeshow test. Despite the fact the omnibus tests for model coefficients returned highly significant results (p < .001) for the interpersonal skills cross-cultural competence factor, the Hosmer and Lemeshow test just missed the mark to be considered significant (p = 0.49 where > 0.50 is considered significant). The Hosmer and Lemeshow Test indicates the interpersonal skill model is not as robust as the 10 other models.
Across all the 11 models, the ranges of predictability for the variability in a particular cross-cultural competence factor, as projected by the Cox and Snell and Nagerlkerke R squares, range from 20.1%-26.9% for relationship orientation to 52.7%-79.8% for self-efficacy. The analysis shows the findings in this study are statistically significant.

Cognitive Style Findings Summary
The most noteworthy finding is that need for cognition is strongly correlated to every cross-cultural competence factor. Need for cognition indicates enjoyment and a desire for effortful cognitive tasks. Individuals high in need for cognition see difficult cognitive tasks as a challenge rather than a stressful event. Often, interacting with foreign partners is a challenging cognitive and emotional task.
SEALs' need for cognition was higher than university students, close to Canadian forces senior enlisted, and lagged well behind Canadian forces officers, two sample populations from Thompson's (1998) study. Unlike almost all of the cross-cultural competence factors, and the cognition style personal fear of invalidity that had fairly even distribution between superior assessment scorers and substandard assessment scorers, SEALs in this study were skewed toward superior performance by more than 82% (72 superior; 20 substandard assessment scorers) in need for cognition. This strong need for cognition by SEALs in this study is consistent with the USSOCOM's (2019) characterization that the typical U.S. SOF member "enjoys games which require problem solving like chess" (p. 58). Additionally, the mean of newly minted SEALs is significantly better than the mean of experienced SEALs in personal need for structure, and newly minted SEALs mean score in need for cognition is very close to experienced SEAL superior assessment scorers.
Personal fear of validity had negative correlations to five cross-cultural competence factors: cultural acuity, cultural relativism, interpersonal skills, stress resilience, and self-efficacy. These results make sense on face value; lack of confidence in one's own judgment, concern over making errors, and slowness in decision making could negatively impact all of the traits where the data shows a negative correlation. The good news for SEALs is that the mean for personal fear of validity was very low, and the top 15th percentile registered the lowest possible score; the bottom 15th percentile was not far behind.
Rigidity was negatively correlated to cultural relativism but had a positive correlation with suspending judgment and self-efficacy. This is the most perplexing finding. Generally, with all things being equal and barring the extremes, one would assume the lower the score on rigidity the better. The data show the expected negative correlation holds for cultural relativism-an ability to recognize and accept difference and the corresponding alternative approaches and responses that different cultures require. High rigidity, logically, would get in the way of cultural relativism. However, why would higher rigidity correlate to increased performance in suspending judgment and self-efficacy? One explanation may be that suspending judgment and self-efficacy are positively affected by the confidence and commitment to maintain a dogged persistence even in the face of mounting evidence that a change in response is required.
The SEAL mean for rigidity was low (significantly lower than the comparison group from Thompson's [1998] study) and SEALs also were skewed toward the bottom 15th in suspending judgment (65 dogs compared to 30 stars; newly minted SEALs accounted for the majority of this skewing). However, this straightforward explanation does not hold for self-efficacy where SEALs were skewed toward top assessment scorers in selfefficacy (70 stars and 21 dogs; newly minted SEALs were largely responsible for this result as well). Furthermore, the data showed rigidity had a very high odds ratio; for every single point increase in rigidity, self-efficacy was 600 times more likely to increase by one point. Further study is required to get beyond a surface explanation of this result.
Personal need for structure was only correlated to cultural relativism and it had a positive correlation. This is another unexpected finding. Because personal need for structure is negatively correlated with integrative complexity, and research (Tadmore et al., 2009) has indicated integrative complexity may have a role in cross-cultural competence, I expected to see personal need for structure to be negatively correlated with cultural relativism; but the correlation was positive. I also expected it to have a larger role across the cross-cultural competence factors, and this was not the case. This finding may indicate structure is important in recognizing and accepting cultural differences and pursuing alternative approaches and responses appropriate for specific cultures.

Demographic-Related Findings Summary
Demographic data were captured to assess any potential correlation to crosscultural competence factors. With only two exceptions in one of 11 cross-cultural competence factors, demographic data were not found to correlate to any of the factors in cognition styles or any other cross-cultural competence factor. For cross-cultural competence factor of suspending judgment, being an experienced SEAL was negatively correlated with the factor and being an officer positively correlated. The data showed being a newly minted SEAL would be 43.5 times more likely to increase a point in suspending judgment. This is somewhat surprising when looking at the distribution of dogs and stars in suspending judgment where newly minted SEALs were heavily skewed toward dogs (51 dogs, 17 all-stars) in suspending judgment. Nevertheless, the data showed being a newly minted SEAL increased the likelihood of higher suspending judgment scores, which is another argument for why newly minted SEALs should be considered for missions that engage foreign partners.
Being an officer would be 6.3 times more likely to increase a point in suspending judgment. While being an officer was positively correlated to suspending judgment when comparing star assessment scorers with dogs, the data showed that the means of officers and enlisted, across all C3 factors showed little difference (see Figure 4.22). For suspending judgment, specifically, the officer mean (4.23) was lower than the enlisted mean (4.40). My takeaway from these data is that when building a team to maximize for cross-cultural competence, do not play the averages-know who the stars are through some system of assessment.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this quantitative study was to identify personal traits correlated with cross-cultural competence assessment factors and to potentially aid in the selection, training, and assignment of SOF related to cross-cultural competence. This research was about cross-cultural competence factors at an individual level of analysis. I am aware of no other study that assesses a cognition style model for correlation with cross-cultural competence. I discovered a correlation between cognition style factors and, to a lesser degree, demographic traits and scores assessing individual cross-cultural competence factors.
In this chapter, I present the limitations of this study, review the objectives of the study, review the research questions and provide a brief overview of the answers to these questions, and then present findings and implications of the study. The chapter closes with recommendations for further study.

Limitations of the Study
It is important to keep the limitations of the study in mind as I discuss the key findings, their possible implications, and potential future research avenues. The theoretical and functional foundation of this study is constrained by limitations of the models and assessments that measure cross-cultural competence. Despite significant DOD focus and academic effort, the foundation is suggestive but not definitive.  provided an overview of the shortfalls of existing cross-cultural competence models, including (a) imprecise definition constructs, with no application strategy; (b) considerable conceptual overlap and lack of distinctions among key model components such as antecedents; knowledge, skills, abilities and other attributes; and performance outcomes; (c) imprecision in specifying the causal order among constructs; and (d) poor articulation of competencies with respect to the U.S. military's practical selection needs due to insufficient attention to military occupational specialty (specific jobs/functions), rank, and service variables. These shortcomings limit the predictive and explanatory abilities of existing cross-cultural competence models and consequently limit the predictive abilities and training and development applications of existing 3C assessments.
The latest cross-cultural competence models for a military context are a combination of compositional and developmental frameworks. Spitzberg and Changnon (2009)  The limitations of this study are tied to the weaknesses of cross-cultural competence assessments (Gabrenya, Moukarzel, Poermance, Griffith, & Deaton, 2012;Selmeski, 2007;Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). In the literature, competence is sometimes equated with a set of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes and, at other times, discussed as a subjective evaluative impression of a level of performance (Abbe & Bortnick, 2010;Turnley 2011). Selmeski (2007) argued observable and measurable standards are "poorly applied to culture; too often applied to surface level behavior but ignores the middle and deep-levels of culture" (p. 6).
Another limitation of this study and the assessment of cross-cultural competence is the use of self-referent tools.  question the methodology of self-reporting: "Self-reports of cross-cultural skills and abilities have been criticized on methodological grounds and may have questionable validity" (p. 7).
While the assessments in this study were shown to have acceptable validity in a few studies, they have not been robustly examined. Regardless, no viable alternative existed for assessing cross-cultural competence. Comprehensive and informed peer assessments or expert measurements did not exist and could have involved significant amounts of time, effort, and potential intrusion upon or disruption of military operations.
Furthermore, subjective evaluations of performance are context specific. This importance of context was underscored by SEAL peer assessments from this study where the same individuals received nominations as both superior and substandard-assessment scorers from peers. Shifting contexts can undermine attempts to establish standards and measures of cross-cultural competence (Spitzberg, 2000(Spitzberg, , 2007Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984. One skill or behavior may be assessed as competent in one context but not another, "thus no particular skill is likely to ever be universally competent" (Spitzberg & Changon, 2009, p. 6).
Assessing performance-narrowly defined as strong relationships and trust built between partner forces and/or mission success enabled by cross-cultural competence-may be possible with significant focus and effort, but identifying what contributed to that success and developing training and education so others can achieve success is a challenge that has not been solved.
Crossing cultures is adaptive work, not a technical task. Therefore, tools, approaches and standards vary by circumstance. In this research, I used the definition of competence Abbe and Bortnick (2010) presented: "a set of behaviors that describe excellent performance" (p. 14), where that set of behaviors requires knowledge, supporting skills and abilities, and complementary personality traits.
However, it is exceedingly difficult to measure competence-those contributing behaviors and their antecedents-in crossing cultures.
Despite these limitations, I used what was available to view cross-cultural competence from a lens of personal traits, demographics, and cognition styles. Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, and Ferzandi (2006) underscored why this might be fruitful: "When individuals are operating in these ambiguous situations [with many unknowns regarding the norms of behavior, social roles, and expectations], personality may be the dominant factor that guides individual behavior" (as cited in Abbe et al., 2007, p. 4). While I believe the findings of this study are significant, they are limited by the state of the field, which remains lacking.
This study is also limited by the population of experienced SEALs and overall population of SEALs. The sample size of recent SEAL training graduates was robust at 81% of the target population. However, the sample size of the experienced SEALs was only 15% of the target population available to participate in the study (89 of 588). Furthermore, the total sample size of 253, composed of newly minted SEALs and experienced SEALs, is a small fraction of the SEAL community (253 of 3394 or 7.5%). Given these limitations, the results of this study are suggestive but far from conclusive.

Study Objectives
The goal of this research was to inform and potentially improve effectiveness of U.S Navy SEAL and other SOF cross-cultural-related selection, training, education and development, and personnel assignment. I identified personal traits among SEALs correlated with superior or lagging performance in cross-cultural environments. I answered the two primary research questions by identifying baseline attribute profiles of recent graduates from SEAL selection and benchmark objectives of SEAL cross-culturalrelated factors, the top 15th percentile of cross-cultural competence factors. These findings inform potential adjustments to selection, training, education and development, and personnel assignment related to cross-cultural competence.

Research Questions and Short Answers
Research Question 1 was: Focusing on experienced SEALs, what are the attribute profiles, defined by cohort mean scores, of cross-cultural superior and substandard assessment scorers, and what is the relationship between demographic and cognition style factors and individual scores in a cross-cultural competence? There are statistically significant correlations among the 11 factors associated with cross-cultural competence and cognition styles (especially need for cognition) and two demographic traits. As shown in Figure 5.1, superior assessment scorers (all-stars) scored very near or in the top ring-a score between 5 and the maximum 6, in all cross-cultural competence factors. Substandard assessment scorers (dogs) scored between the third and fourth ring out of a possible six. The pattern of scores-relationships of means to other factorsappears to be consistent between all-stars and dogs. That is, the attribute profiles of allstars and dogs are roughly the same. Overall, based on the attribute profiles of superior and substandard assessment scorers, it appears that SEALs have registered a strong crosscultural competence baseline for the community.
The most significant difference between superior and substandard assessment scorers in cognitive styles was the large variance in need for cognition (correlated to all 11 cross-cultural competence factors) and personal need for structure (correlated to only one cross-cultural competence factor; see Figure 5.2). This difference is what appears to separate all-stars and dogs the most and, given the importance of need for cognition, likely contributes to some of the variance in the cross-cultural competence means of allstars and dogs. Additionally, the mean for all SEALs outperformed the three populations from Thompson's (1998) study in personal need for structure, rigidity, and personal fear of invalidity. For need for cognition, SEALs were very close to Canadian armed forces noncommissioned officers (0.06 points less) and were not far behind Canadian armed forces officers (0.23 points less). The mean scores for the entire SEAL population in the study presented a very strong cognitive style attribute profile from a cross-cultural competence perspective.

Major Findings and Potential Implications
The two most noteworthy findings are (a) need for cognition was strongly correlated to every cross-cultural competence factor and (b) newly minted SEALs may have a strong predisposition for contributing in a cross-cultural mission set.
Need for cognition is highly correlated to cross-cultural performance, and SEALs scored high in need for cognition. Need for cognition was correlated to eight of 11 crosscultural competence factors with a significance level of less than .001. Statistically, there is near-zero risk of concluding that need for cognition had no correlation to these eight factors. For the other three of the 11 cross-cultural competence factors, need for cognition had a significance level of 0.01, 0.03, and 0.04, meaning that there is a 1-4% risk of concluding that need for cognition showed a correlation when it does not.
The SEALs displayed high but not extraordinarily high means in need for cognition. As discussed previously, when comparing SEALs' scores in need for cognition to the sample populations from Thompson's (1998) study, SEALs were higher in need for cognition than university students, close to Canadian forces senior enlisted, and lagged slightly behind Canadian forces officers. The SEALs in this study were skewed toward top assessment scorers in need for cognition. Unlike almost all cross-cultural competence factors and the cognition style personal fear of invalidity that had fairly even distribution between superior assessment scorers and substandard assessment scorers, SEALs in this study were skewed toward superior performance by more than 82% (72 superior; 20 substandard assessment scorers) in need for cognition. SEALs may be well positioned to use an apparent community strength in high need for cognition for positive performance in cross-cultural competence.
In cognition style factors, newly minted SEALs' mean scores were very close to top assessment scorers in need for cognition. Again, this was the most critical cognition style factor, with strong correlation to all the cross-cultural competence factors.
Additionally, newly minted SEAL means were close to all-star assessment scorers in personal need for structure and rigidity.
There was a major difference in personal fear of invalidity between newly minted However, in partner force engagement, these data imply all things may not be equal, and newly minted SEALs may bring something special to the table.
The mean scores for SEALs in this study and populations in Thompson's (1998) study of cognition styles are shown in Figure 5.5 in a radar chart. The same information in tabular form is shown in

Population Means for Decision Style Factors
Across the three factors where a lower score is generally better-personal need for structure, rigidity, and personal fear of invalidity-SEALs scored significantly lower than Canadian military officers and noncommissioned officers (senior enlisted), and University of Arizona students. However, in need for cognition, where a higher score is better, SEALs lag behind Canadian military personnel from Thompson's (1998) study.

Other Findings and Implications
In addition to the correlation of need for cognition to every cross-cultural competence factor, and the possible high contribution potential of newly minted SEALs to cross-cultural competence missions, several other findings are worth noting. These include SEALs' scores in personal fear of invalidity, cultural relativism and the need for structure, newly minted SEALs' potential weaknesses in suspending judgment, inclusiveness limitations of SEALs, perplexing findings on rigidity, and implications for assessment and selection-for SEALs in general and for cross-cultural competence missions specifically. Each of these findings will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
The SEALs were nearly fearless regarding personal fear invalidity. Personal fear of invalidity had a negative correlation to five cross-cultural competence factors: cultural acuity, cultural relativism, interpersonal skills, stress resilience, and self-efficacy. The good news for SEALs is the mean for personal fear of validity was very low; those in the top 15th percentile registered the lowest possible score, while the bottom 15th percentile was not far behind. On the other hand, extreme low scores in personal fear of invalidity may raise concerns about hubris and overconfidence, issues not unfamiliar to the SEAL community.
The personal need for structure was only correlated to cultural relativism, which an unexpected finding. Because personal need for structure was negatively correlated with integrative complexity, and research (Tadmore et al., 2009) has indicated integrative complexity may have a role in cross-cultural competence, I expected to see personal need for structure have a negative correlation. I also expected it to have a larger role across the cross-cultural competence factors. This was not the case. This finding may indicate structure is important in recognizing and accepting cultural differences and pursuing alternative approaches and responses appropriate for specific cultures. In the literature, I found no indications of tools or structured processes to consider and improve cultural relativism-the ability to recognize and accept cultural differences and the corresponding alternative approaches and responses different cultures engender. Providing structure and developing tools and training to recognize cultural differences is one potential path to improve cross-cultural competence.
Newly minted SEAL dogs were prominent (75% skew toward dogs) in suspending judgment-the ability to withhold judgment until adequate information becomes available and to perceive information neutrally. This result may warrant further exploration and some focused attention in SEAL training.
The SEALS were low in inclusiveness. Newly minted SEALs (55.9%) and experienced SEALs (63.6%) were skewed toward low scores in inclusiveness. Defined as a tendency to accept and include people and things based on commonalities and an appreciation of differences, inclusiveness is important not only in cross-cultural competence but also with integration of SEAL support and enablers (non-SEALs) into SEAL elements. Based on my experience and discussions with other SEALs, integration of non-SEALs into SEAL formations has been difficult at times. An increased focus on inclusiveness training and awareness may be warranted for the entire SEAL community.
There were perplexing findings about rigidity. Rigidity was negatively correlated with cultural relativism but has a positive correlation to suspending judgment and selfefficacy. I found this to be the most perplexing finding. Generally, with all things being equal and barring the extremes, the lower the score on rigidity, the better. The data show pattern holds for cultural relativism-an ability to recognize and accept difference and the corresponding alternative approaches and responses that different cultures require.
High rigidity, logically, would get in the way of cultural relativism. However, higher rigidity correlated to increased performance in suspending judgment and self-efficacy.
One explanation may be suspending judgment and self-efficacy are positively affected by the confidence and commitment to maintain a dogged persistence even in the face of mounting evidence that a change is response is required.
The SEAL mean for rigidity was low (significantly lower than the comparison group from Thompson's [1998] study), and SEALs also were skewed toward the bottom 15th percentile in suspending judgment (65 dogs compared to 30 all-stars; newly minted SEALs accounted for the majority of this skewing). However, this explanation does not hold for self-efficacy, where SEALs were skewed toward top assessment scorers (70 allstars and 21 dogs; newly minted SEALs were largely responsible for this result as well).
Furthermore, data showed rigidity had a very high odds ratio. For every single point increase in rigidity, self-efficacy was 600 times more likely to increase by one point.
Further study is required to get beyond a surface explanation of this result.
My takeaway from all of the findings is that when specifically building a team to maximize for cross-cultural competence, one should not play the averages and should instead know who the all-stars are through assessment. I would not go as far as to say need for cognition, other cognition style factors, or cross-cultural competence factors should influence SEAL selection. The U.S. SOF, including SEALs, are considered warrior-diplomats. The diplomat role is related to cross-cultural competence. As this research has shown, cross-cultural competence is vitally important to SOF operations and U.S. national security. Especially for SEALs, the warrior role is paramount; direct action raids, violence of action, and speed of execution are key to the warrior role, and it is not clear what role cognition styles and cross-cultural competence factors play in warrior competence.
The Navy Health Research Center studied top assessment scorers in SEAL closequarter combat training with a focus on the biometric output (e.g., heart rate, breathing rate; K. Kelly, personal communication, 2012). Before considering tinkering with selection criteria, it would be important to understand how cognition styles and crosscultural competence factors are correlated to superior performance in close combat.
However, as noted previously, those with high need for cognition and newly minted SEALs may be uniquely suited for contribution to missions that require cross-cultural competence. The insights into cross-cultural superior-performer attributes identified in this study may assist with improving personnel assignments to positions requiring high cross-cultural capability. These results may be the start of a method for cross-culturalrelated personnel screening and could assist with related personnel assignments.
The results provided minimal insight into assisting with the design of SOF training and education focused on cross-cultural capabilities and the measurement of related program effectiveness. This is consistent with the state of cross-cultural models and assessment tools.

Potential Future Research
As discussed previously, the correlation of SEAL top assessment scorers in close combat training (identified as "top guns") and superior performers on direct action missions should be studied to understand how these top guns compare with cross-cultural competence all-stars in cognition style and cross-cultural competence factors. Is there a cognition style difference between a close combat top gun and a cross-cultural competence all-star? If not, the factors that contribute to both could become assessment and selection aids for the SEAL selection course. If there are differences, these differences should be factored into building mission specific task elements.
While this study was focused on Navy SEALs, it would be informative to conduct a similar study with the Special Forces community, commonly known as Green Berets.
Do top assessment scorers in the Green Beret selection exercise, an event known as Robin Sage, a cross-cultural simulation, display a high need for cognition, and do other cognitive style and cross-cultural competence factors correlate to superior and substandard assessment scorers? How do recent graduates of the Special Forces qualification course compare to experienced Green Berets?
The correlation of rigidity to three cross-cultural competence factors may also present the potential for a fruitful study. Why is rigidity negatively correlated to cultural relativism and positively correlated to suspending judgment and self-efficacy?
This study was, in part, inspired by my interest in the importance of integrative complexity-the capacity and willingness to differentiate among competing perspectives and to integrate conceptual links among these competing perspectives (Seudfeld et al., 1992). Tadmore et al. (2009) placed integrative complexity into the context of crosscultural competence: Within a cross-cultural context, integrative complexity reflects the degree to which people accept the reasonableness of clashing cultural perspectives on how to live and, consequently, the degree to which they are motivated to develop cognitive schemas that integrate these competing world views by explaining how different people can come to such divergent conclusions or by specifying ways of blending potentially discordant norms and values. (p. 106) Cognition styles, and particularly personal need for structure and need for cognition, were used as proxies for integrative complexity. A study that finds an elegant and minimally intrusive way to assess the impact of integrate complexity may yield significant insight.
26. My personality is such that, in a foreign country, I could quickly put an irate citizen at easy. 27. I possess the skills needed to persuade foreign civilians to provide sensitive information. 28. I consider myself as being oblivious to what is really going on in group interactions. 29. I would have little problem figuring out the heart of the matter when observing a disagreement between soldiers and foreign citizens. 30. It is easy for me to quickly gain the trust of others through casual discussion. 31. If I find a common practice of the locals offensive while deployed, I would have trouble understanding why the locals act that way. 32. Prior to deployment, I would try to learn the basics of the language before going, whether directed to or not. 33. Since we are often deployed in order to help other countries, these countries should adjust to our customs, not the other way around. 34. I can win over a group of strangers with ease. 35. I would probably rely on another team member to strike up initial conversations with foreign citizens when deployed, as this is not my strong suit. 36. I could see my temper getting the best of me when interacting with unappreciative foreign citizens during deployment. 37. I am a compassionate and trusting person in general. 38. It would be hard for me to read the intent of foreign citizens with whom I am communicating. 39. I use my sense of humor to quickly put others at ease. 40. If a trainee was resistant to my instructions, I would put myself in their shoes to figure out why. 41. In trying to persuade a village elder to let us search his village, I would probably fall back on force if my first attempts at persuasion did not work. 42. If you know the basic do's and don'ts of a country, and some language, that's all you need to get by to interact with locals during deployments. 43. Negotiating with village elders during a deployment would fit my abilities. 44. I get upset when I hear people making fun of people from other countries.
On a scale of 1 to 6: 11. Please rate how effective you think the language training was in preparing you for your assignment: 1 = Not at all 2 = Minimally effective 3 = Moderately effective 4 = Highly effective 5 = Very highly effective (essential) 12. Identify the mission of your platoon or task element 1 = Train, Advise, and Assist (e.g., JPAT, JAT, VSP) 2 = Contingency Response (e.g., CRE) 3 = Other (Please specify) 13. If your mission was contingency response how many exercises, SMEEs, etc., did your task element participate in? 1 = 0 2 = 1-3 3 = 4+ 14. Provide your personal combat indicator (First Initial, Last Initial, Last 4 SSN). This will be used to identify your responses to all related assessments. 15. What was the size of your task element (# of SEALs