Cross-Cultural Differences in ICAM Interviews

Introduction: Why culture matters in ICAM interviews

ICAM (Incident Cause Analysis Method) investigations depend heavily on interviews. They are the primary tool for uncovering actions, conditions, and organisational factors that contributed to an incident. Yet, interviews are more than technical data-gathering- they are human interactions shaped by language, emotion, and culture.

In an increasingly globalised workforce, investigators regularly speak with people whose cultural backgrounds differ from their own. These differences can subtly, but powerfully, affect what information is shared, how it is shared, and how it is interpreted. Failing to recognise these cultural dynamics can lead to misunderstandings, incomplete evidence, and biased conclusions.

This article explores how cross-cultural differences influence ICAM interviews, the communication pitfalls investigators should avoid, and the practical strategies to ensure interviews remain fair, respectful, and effective across all cultures.

1. The foundation: ICAM’s emphasis on facts, not blame

Before examining cultural nuances, it is essential to revisit ICAM’s purpose.

ICAM is designed to identify what happened, why it happened, and how to prevent recurrence. It rejects blame and focuses on systemic factors- latent conditions, organisational influences, and failed defences- rather than individual fault.

The interview plays a central role in this process. Investigators aim to:

• Establish a chronology of events

• Understand actions, decisions, and rationales

• Explore environmental, task, and organisational conditions

• Identify latent conditions and absent or failed defences

To achieve this, the interviewer must create a psychologically safe environment where participants can speak freely.

However, what “safe” means varies across cultures.

2. Defining culture in the context of interviews

Culture shapes the values, communication styles, and expectations of individuals. It influences how people express emotions, respond to authority, and perceive truth.

Several well-established models help explain these variations:

• Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions includes six key dimensions for comparing national cultures: the Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV), Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS), the Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI), Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation (LTO), and Indulgence vs. Restraint (IVR) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede%27s_cultural_dimensions_theory)

• Hall’s High-Context vs Low-Context Cultures are ends of a continuum of how explicit the messages exchanged in a culture are and how important the context is in communication. The distinction between cultures with high and low contexts is intended to draw attention to variations in both spoken and non-spoken forms of communication. The continuum pictures how people communicate with others through their range of communication abilities: utilising gestures, relations, body language, verbal messages, or non-verbal messages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_cultures)

• Trompenaars’ Seven Dimensions, his model of national culture differences, has seven dimensions. There are five orientations covering how human beings deal with each other, one of which deals with time, and one which deals with the environment. The first five of Trompenaars’ dimensions are Talcott Parsons' pattern variables; the other two of Trompenaars’ dimensions are taken from Kluckholn and Strodtbeck's dimensions of culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompenaars%27s_model_of_national_culture_differences) 

When investigators ignore these factors, they risk misinterpreting behaviour- believing someone is evasive, defensive, or untruthful when they are simply acting within their cultural norms.

3. Common cultural dimensions that influence ICAM interviews

Let’s examine several cultural dimensions and their specific impacts on ICAM interviews.

3.1 Power Distance: The hierarchy problem

In high power-distance cultures (e.g. many Asian, Middle Eastern, and African nations), people show strong deference to authority. They may:

• Avoid contradicting or criticising superiors

• Use vague language to avoid offence

• Expect decisions and conclusions to come from “the boss”

In an ICAM interview, this can lead to the omission of critical information if it could reflect poorly on a manager or organisation. A worker may know about a missing control or unsafe instruction but remain silent out of respect or fear.

Strategy: Investigators must emphasise non-blame, explain that the goal is learning, and provide examples of how systemic issues- not individuals- are addressed. Consider private interviews and reassurance that statements will not harm anyone’s employment.

3.2 Individualism vs Collectivism: “I” or “we”?

In individualistic cultures (e.g. Australia, USA, UK), interviewees tend to focus on personal actions and responsibility. They may openly describe mistakes or disagreements.

In collectivist cultures (e.g. Japan, China, Indonesia), group harmony is valued. People often use “we” language and avoid highlighting individual failings. They may understate conflicts or omit details that could cause loss of face to colleagues.

Strategy: Investigators should phrase questions to invite collective perspectives (“How did the team approach this task?”) and avoid forcing individuals to single out others. Summarise shared understanding rather than assigning blame.

3.3 High-Context vs Low-Context Communication

In high-context cultures (e.g. Japan, Arab countries, Latin America), much meaning is conveyed through tone, silence, and non-verbal cues. Direct questions can be perceived as rude, and indirect answers may signal disagreement.

In low-context cultures (e.g. Germany, USA, Australia), meaning is explicit. Interviewers expect direct answers, and ambiguity may be seen as avoidance.

Risk: An investigator from a low-context culture may interpret vague responses as dishonesty, while the interviewee believes they are being polite and respectful.

Strategy: Use open questions, allow pauses, and observe non-verbal cues. Paraphrase and confirm understanding: “I sense there may have been concerns about this step. Can you tell me more?”

3.4 Uncertainty Avoidance

Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance (e.g. Japan, France) prefer clear rules and may fear being blamed for deviations. Interviewees might withhold details about rule-bending even if it was necessary.

Strategy: Clarify that the investigation aims to understand why decisions made sense at the time, not to penalise rule deviations. Highlight ICAM’s focus on latent conditions and system design.

3.5 Masculinity vs Femininity (Task vs Relationship Orientation)

In masculine cultures (e.g. Japan, Mexico), achievement and assertiveness dominate. Admitting mistakes may be seen as a weakness. In feminine cultures (e.g. Sweden, the Netherlands), cooperation and humility are valued, and sharing errors may be easier.

Strategy: Frame questions around learning and improvement, not personal fault. Use neutral language like “What challenges did the team face?” rather than “Who made the error?”

3.6 Language and translation barriers

Even when interviews are conducted in a shared language, literal translation can distort meaning. Words like “incident,” “fault,” or “cause” carry different connotations across languages. Translators unfamiliar with ICAM principles may inadvertently alter intent.

Strategy:

• Use trained interpreters familiar with safety and ICAM terminology

• Debrief interpreters before and after

• Check understanding frequently

4. Real-world examples of cross-cultural challenges

Example 1: The silent nod

An Australian investigator interviewed a Japanese technician who nodded frequently. The investigator assumed agreement. In reality, the nods meant “I hear you,” not “I agree.” Key facts were missed until a local liaison clarified.

Example 2: Protecting the group

In a collectivist team in Indonesia, workers avoided mentioning a supervisor’s poor planning that led to a shortcut. The investigator’s early focus on “who decided” shut down dialogue. Reframing questions to explore processes and pressures unlocked the truth.

Example 3: The blame fear

A French engineer hesitated to admit that a maintenance step was skipped because the procedure was outdated. In a high uncertainty-avoidance culture, admitting deviation felt dangerous. Once reassured about ICAM’s learning purpose, he shared the critical detail.

5. Investigator self-awareness: recognising your own cultural lens

Investigators also carry cultural biases. A direct, time-efficient Australian approach may seem aggressive to an East Asian worker. A German interviewer’s precision may feel intimidating to a Pacific Islander used to storytelling.

Key practices:

• Reflect on your own communication style

• Seek cultural briefings before interviews

• Ask local colleagues for insight into norms

• Practice cultural humility- assume there’s always more to learn

6. Building trust across cultures

Trust is the foundation of effective interviews. Cross-cultural trust requires extra attention to:

6.1 Relationship building

In some cultures, small talk and personal rapport are essential before discussing serious matters. Rushing into questions may be seen as disrespectful.

6.2 Transparency

Explain:

• The purpose of ICAM

• What will be recorded

• How information will be used

• Who will see the report

6.3 Psychological safety

Make clear that:

• The goal is learning, not punishment

• Systemic causes are sought

• Responses will be treated confidentially

7. Adapting your interview technique

7.1 Preparation

• Research cultural norms and communication styles

• Engage local HR or safety representatives

• Prepare culturally appropriate phrasing

7.2 During the interview

• Use open-ended and process-focused questions

• Avoid yes/no traps

• Allow silence

• Observe non-verbal cues

• Summarise frequently

7.3 After the interview

• Validate interpretations with local experts

• Review transcripts for translation nuances

• Reflect on potential biases

8. Leveraging ICAM tools for cross-cultural clarity

ICAM’s structured tools- such as the PEEPO chart and timeline- help bridge cultural gaps by focusing on facts and sequences, not opinions or blame.

Visual tools allow interviewees to see and correct misunderstandings. They also reduce the pressure of verbal explanation, particularly for non-native speakers.

9. Organisational role in supporting culturally competent investigations

Organisations must equip investigators with:

• Cultural competence training

• Access to interpreters and local liaisons

• Policies emphasising learning and fairness

• Post-investigation debriefs to capture cultural insights

A truly global safety culture values diverse perspectives and designs systems that respect cultural realities.

10. The risk of cultural bias in conclusions

Even after data collection, analysis may be skewed if investigators misinterpret behaviour. For instance:

• Silence may be coded as non-cooperation rather than respect

• Group consensus may be misread as collusion

• Emotional restraint may be viewed as apathy

Mitigation steps:

• Include culturally diverse reviewers

• Test findings against alternative interpretations

• Focus on systemic evidence, not assumptions about intent

11. Key takeaways

1. Culture shapes communication. Recognise how hierarchy, collectivism, and context influence responses.

2. Trust is built differently. Adjust pace, tone, and relationship-building accordingly.

3. Investigators carry bias too. Practice cultural humility and self-reflection.

4. Structured tools help. Use visual aids and systemic frameworks to reduce ambiguity.

5. Organisations must invest in competence. Training and support ensure fairness and learning.

12. Conclusion: Listening beyond words

Every ICAM interview is an act of listening- not only to words, but to meaning, emotion, and culture. When investigators appreciate cultural nuance, they transform interviews from simple data collection into bridges of understanding.

In a multicultural world, effective investigations demand more than technical skill- they require empathy, curiosity, and cultural intelligence. Only then can ICAM fulfil its promise: not just to reveal causes, but to learn deeply from every human story behind an incident.