text: Considerations to Achieve Unity of Effort
  reconstruction teams have experienced success in Iraq and Afghanistan, their implementation also has
  highlighted significant challenges to interagency coordination. Overall, their levels of effectiveness,
  cohesion, and coherence have varied. Observers have suggested that provincial reconstruction team
  performance hinges almost solely on the ability of the military commander to work around obstacles to
  coordination.
  COMPETENCIES FOR INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
  3-12. At the national level, the Department of State has led efforts to build frameworks that enhance
  interagency coordination for stability efforts. However, leaders on the ground may only have general
  guidance and concepts and few formal arrangements. To improve collaboration in the field, commanders
  consider types of knowledge and skills along with best practices for working with interagency partners.
  Development of Cultural Agility
  3-13. Soldiers develop cultural agility—their ability to understand new cultures and adjust behavior to
  function effectively in them. In the context of stability, the idea of cultural differences normally refers to
  the cultures of a host nation. However, Army leaders also need to understand the organizational cultures of
  U.S. stability partners. Soldiers improve their sociocultural understanding of other groups by developing a
  greater awareness of norms, beliefs, practices, and perceptions. They try to understand how cultural factors
  will influence others’ behaviors, perceptions, and motivations. Sociocultural understanding helps
  commanders and staffs determine the effects of cultural norms and perceptions on mission objectives.
  Soldiers assess cultural factors so they can understand how individuals from other groups (societies or
  partner organizations) may view their behavior. They try to mitigate or avoid misunderstandings. Soldiers
  improve their ability to establish rapport and build relationships with individuals from different societal and
  organizational cultures.
  Understanding of the Context of Interagency Coordination
  3-14. The context of interagency coordination includes the interagency partners and an operational
  environment. A holistic understanding of an operational environment includes an awareness of civil
  considerations and sociocultural factors, such as beliefs and values, sources of power and authority, and
  social structures. These form a context for Army and interagency stability efforts. Whatever the mission
  objective, Army leaders study the environment’s historical, regional, and cultural context. To support
  situational understanding, Army leaders need to understand how a population perceives Army operations
  and interagency activities in which Army units participate.
  3-15. Army leaders maintain a focused and persistent effort to understanding the culture, geography,
  politics, infrastructure, and economics of the country or region where forces are employed. This is
  challenging because such factors are dynamic and constantly evolving. Individuals working on interagency
  teams must find out where to obtain relevant information about the cultural context. Members must also be
  able to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of such information. (For more information on civil
  considerations and sociocultural factors, see FM 3-24.)
  Understanding of Capabilities of Interagency Partners and Systems for Coordination
  3-16. Understanding an operational environment includes understanding all interagency stability partners.
  Effective collaboration required understanding the policies, processes, and norms of interagency partners.
  Success in operations focused on stability also requires an awareness of trends that influence views of the
  actors and an understanding of factors that shape or constrain options and capabilities for partner
  organizations.
  3-17. Army leaders develop the information needed to understand partner organizations, their component
  teams, and their place in overall U.S. stability activities and goals. This understanding forms the backdrop
  for assessing the effect of Army actions, plans, and decisions on partner organizations. A poor
  understanding of the partners must be avoided because it can hamper trust and impair integration of Army
  team members in interagency decisionmaking.