text: Chapter 3
  ORGANIZATIONAL DIFFERENCES
  3-18. Military and civilian organizational cultures differ in significant ways. Organizational cultures
  comprise factors such as shared values, norms, expectations, and practices. An organizational culture
  influences how individuals approach work and what they regard as mission accomplishment. When team
  members with different organizational cultures interact with one another, differences become evident and
  can create tension in the group. Soldiers can minimize difficulties by improving their understanding of and
  attitudes toward partners.
  3-19. Organizational differences—in mission objectives, size, and resource capabilities, and neutrality
  among others—and challenges in information sharing can create friction between military and civilian
  partners. Military personnel can improve interagency coordination by educating themselves on these
  differences. They should demonstrate a knowledge and appreciation of their partners’ capabilities and
  viewpoints.
  3-20. Military personnel conducting interagency coordination consider organizational differences related
  to—
  * Leadership.
  * Mission objectives.
  * Resources available.
  * The nature of teamwork.
  * The nature of humanitarian efforts.
  * Time orientation.
  * Measurement.
  Leadership
  3-21. Army leaders lack authority over the interagency partnerships in which they participate. Therefore,
  they need to develop other means of influence, as interagency decisionmaking processes tend to require
  building consensus. Soldiers also need to develop influence techniques that gain cooperation and preclude
  resistance to military objectives. Such techniques are uncommon within a traditional military setting.
  Mission Objectives
  3-22. Army leaders ensure various organizational priorities and mandates do not reduce the unity of effort
  for interagency teams or partnerships. They develop an understanding of the interrelatedness of
  objectives—how the objectives of Army forces and other partners align within U.S. security policy. With
  this perspective in mind, Army leaders strive to enhance unity of effort. The objectives of all partners are
  important and should be integrated into the whole rather than regarded as competing.
  Resources Available
  3-23. Army forces sometimes have more resources than their interagency stability partners have. While
  uncertain or hostile environments need resource overmatch, this imbalance may hinder success when
  conducting interagency coordination. Army leaders regularly monitor their attitudes and those of others in
  relation to volume of resources. They should avoid inadvertently creating a perception that they consider
  their mission more important simply because they have more resources. Army leaders should avoid
  inadvertently stifling contributions of smaller agencies or considering partner objectives unimportant in
  comparison with Army objectives. Such negative attitudes potentially impair collaborative decisionmaking
  and effective partnerships.
  Nature of Teamwork
  3-24. The take-charge, can-do attitude of Soldiers can come across as overbearing to interagency partners.
  In areas related to host-nation development, the Army may be seen as attempting to take over and manage
  all activities. Many partners join stability efforts intending to share the work, discuss the needs, and build
  consensus with an attitude of collaboration. Certain preferences of Army organizational culture, such as