A White Paper: Leading Across Cultures

This White Paper looks at how our cultural influences impact our values and beliefs and consequently our behaviours, including Leadership styles. It goes on to suggest that different cultures value different leadership approaches and also attach different importance to business goals. This can create confusion, misunderstandings and conflict. Nevertheless, companies with extensive ethnic diversity are more likely to deliver the innovative ideas and the creativity to deliver new products, services and solutions. This white paper explores the limitations and considerations of tapping into that potential and of the importance of doing so for global organisations.

Introduction

Just as we thought we were making progress as an inclusive society, the UK plunged into a polarized nation that seems to have caused regressive conversations about ‘foreigners’ and an increase in racially-induced hate crimes. Clearly the British ‘bulldog spirit’ The British Bulldog Spirit is an expression that became synonymous with Prime Minister Churchill during and after the war years to express solidity and fearlessness. It has since become used as an association with a strongly nationalistic position, viewpoint or person. is alive and well as is a radical form of bias exhibited by the US Republican candidate, Donald Trump. Elsewhere in Europe, the rise of ‘far right’ parties is apparent. Thus, ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ formation is reinforcing what social scientists have for a long-time known – that we typically like and trust ‘people like us’. This is explained in a quotation from Anais Nin, “we don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are.”

In the workplace, this bias is very often unconscious as most of us think that we believe in an open, transparent, ethical and ‘just’ world – one that is beyond bias, beyond ego.

 

IMAGE: A fish never discovers his need for water until he is no longer in it.

So how much are our allegiances hidden to us? In a quotation from Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner we may begin to understand one of the big paradoxes of cultural bias: “A fish never discovers his need for water until he is no longer in it.” Thus, those of us who have not had the opportunity to live and work outside of our home country will not appreciate the magnitude of this quotation. Even those who have had tenures overseas may have simply transferred their way of life into a new country –without really adjusting.

Hofstede explains that the difficulty arising from identifying culture-related behaviour is because:
“It takes a prolonged stay abroad and mixing with other nationals there for us to recognise the numerous and often subtle differences in the ways they and we behave, because that is how our society has programmed us” (2001, p. 18). Hall also states, “Understanding the reality of covert culture and accepting it on a gut level comes neither quickly nor easily; it must be lived” (1976, p. 58). This seemingly implies that to understand other cultures, it is necessary to live outside your own for extended and repeated tenures.

Therein lies a dilemma and perhaps explains why there are so many misunderstandings when operating globally. There are many challenges. How can global leaders, who have not had this depth of exposure really understand and appreciate what is going on for someone with an entirely different perspective? How can they make the time to explore the nuances and subtlety of cultural differences? How can leaders operating globally remain authentic whilst exhibiting cultural sensitivity and understanding? How can they be adaptive in the face of so many different cultures and cultural norms?

As we attempt to address these questions, perhaps it would help to first explore the notion of leadership and specifically what is imbued in the concept of ‘good leadership’ for different people.

The notion of good leadership

The definition of a good leader is often culturally-bound.

1. Beyond ego. Ego is essentially an individualist construct, borne by individualist cultures. Ego being Latin for I and was brought into ‘popular’ awareness by Sigmund Freud. From Germany; an individualist culture. There are many cultures who do not perceive the self to be a separate entity. More significantly, concepts of self can vary widely across cultures. A person tending to construe him/herself as an independent individual, or as an interdependent member of a group, is culturally bound. Cousins (1989) devised a twenty-statement test to compare self-concepts between students in Japan and the US. Results showed that the Western self-concept is thought of as independent and autonomous, whereas the Eastern is interdependent. This is sometimes reflected in language. For example, the Japanese word for self, jibun, means “a share of the shared life space”, according to Hamaguchi (1985, cited in Markus and Kitayama, 1999, p. 343). Furthermore, there may be cultures who are more hierarchical in nature who expect a leader to have a strong ‘ego’ when ego is expressed as strength of direction or force of opinion.
2. If we take ‘the greater good’ as a concept then for all parties this can get confusing. Which entity are we referring to when we refer to the greater good? This could be simply the ‘other’ as in several Asian cultures or it could be the family, the community, the organization as a whole – or a team or division, it could be a country – or a guiding spiritual force. For those cultures who believe that external forces guide their fate this is likely to be an allegiance to ‘the Gods’. ‘Inshallah’ translated to mean ‘to Gods will’ can be very frustrating to those who are internally-referenced, from individualistic cultures believing in the ability, acumen or competency of the leader, rather than the fateful ‘what will be will be’ approach
3. Lastly, ethics in the concept of culture. If as we suggest, culture means ‘how we do things around here’ then an emotionally intelligent leader would be attuned into the way in which things work in the local culture and adapt accordingly. But, how far do we take this? Many companies have come unstuck when operating globally when discovering that local cultural norms and expectations run counter to their own moral compass. Bribery in one country can be tantamount to ‘connections’ in another. Or, in some paternalist cultures it may be seen as being benevolent towards those who do not have the resources or are not paid ‘fairly’; therefore, a ‘backhander’ may be seen as an obligation or a cultural norm.

The net result of these differences in perspective – on a global scale – are vastly differing views of what good leadership is. In his book, Leading with Cultural Intelligence, Livermore (2010) explores what the leadership expectations are from different cultural perspectives. We can point to many examples where cultural differences determine what good looks like. Fig 2 shows just some:

Fig 2 Notions of good leadership are culturally-bound

 

Thus we can immediately see potential for clashes when some want empowerment, some want benevolence, some want highly cultivated style, others want risk-takers, confidence, flair, empathy, aloof, self-sacrifice, relationship builders and some don’t value leaders at all. And those differences are from a list of only seven countries!

Differing values lead to differing emphasis on business goals

Complicating the matter still further, Hofstede et al. (2010), in a study of more than 1,800 MBA students at twenty-one universities in seventeen countries, found marked differences in perceived business goals. Perceived business goals means those that you personally hold to be the most important (as opposed to the ones that your boss or the organisation hold to be the most important). The international top five goals were growth of the business, personal wealth, this year’s profits, power, and continuity of the business, with China and Germany being the most dissimilar from the international average. China and Germany both placed “responsibility towards society” and “respecting ethical norms” in the top five, whereas these were typically found in the bottom five for other countries. China also cited patriotism, national pride, honour, face, and reputation as extremely important, and Germany placed responsibility towards employees, creating something new, and profits in ten years’ time as important.

Insert the following in a box – International top five business goals:

• Growth of the business
• Personal wealth
• This year’s profits
• Power
• Continuity of the business

If on top of all of this complexity, we are demanding that leaders are authentic, we need to ask the question: authentic to what or to whom?

What is Culture?

In a well-known expression, Hofstede (2003) refers to culture as “the software of the mind.” The question remains, is it the operating system or the application software? If one views culture as ‘the way we do things around here’ then it may be understood as the operating system. The fundamental roots, or codes, of how things work, understood by members of a group – be that a country, region, organization, community or social group or family.

These codes are learned from an early age and are therefore largely sub-conscious to us. A useful analogy is that of the cultural iceberg. Above the waterline lies visible culture. What we can see may include customs, dress, buildings, food, rituals, and more, even the way streets are laid out or named. These aspects may be easily changed and may even be temporary or subject to the whims of ‘popular culture’. Those aspects of culture below the waterline include our thoughts, attitudes, emotions, expectations, values, and beliefs, many of which are enduring yet are difficult to observe and often remain hidden, even from ourselves.

Fig 3. The cultural iceberg

Those aspects above the water are more easily visible and understandable, whereas those beneath the water are intangible and therefore less easily understood. On a collective level, the cultural self becomes manifest in cultural norms. Whilst customs, dress, art, dance, and music, even the influence of climate, are all expressions of cultural norms, below the waterline is where most clashes occur. Here lie values, assumptions, and beliefs. They are less widely known to be the expectations and rules that guide the behavior of members of a culture and are often held subconsciously. If two icebergs were to collide, the impact would be felt below the water line. As with culture, this is where the most damage may be felt and where the potential for clashes lies. It is here that those leaders with an eye on leveraging the potential of diversity of thought need to be most aware.

The difficulties of identifying cultural values and beliefs

Cultural communication patterns, loaded with custom, practice, and belief, along with value-laden expectations, are acknowledged to contribute to misinterpretations in a cross-cultural setting. Significantly, however, it is the meaning behind this for the individual that appears to be the area of potential conflict. Triandis (1972) suggests that subjective culture is the cultural groups’ typical perception of norms, values, and beliefs. But, on the whole we do not know very much about how culture shapes our perceptions and choices; the internal drivers and deeply-held emotions of our cultural selves. If we are not aware of these drivers of differences in perspectives how can we possibly begin to understand the reasons for workplace disagreements or behaviours that can appear subversive, obstructive or intrusive – or just plain rude!

Values-led leadership styles

One key research project that has identified similarities in leadership approaches based on where a person comes from confirms that culture affects leadership styles. The Globe Study (House, et al., 2004) has identified similarities based on ten regions around the world: Southern Asia, Latin America, Nordic Europe, Anglo, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Confucian Asia. This awareness alone can help leaders orientate themselves towards inherent differences. However, it still categorizes people into groups based on where they come from, increasing the tendency towards ‘in-group’ or ‘out-group’ perspectives and stereotyping. Many emerging leaders and ‘millennials’ have had exposure to multiple cultural influences before they enter the workplace, bringing with them a rich tapestry of perspectives. Therefore, this, along with a growing global middle class means that a global mindset is called for when working in multi-cultural teams and societies.

What remains true however is that attitudes to authority can cause motivated or de-motivated staff, depending on what the expectations of a good leader are. This can be compounded when we bring organization culture into the mix. Organisation cultures are borne out of the home culture of the original founders, or a merger of cultures in the case of international mergers and acquisitions. International mergers and acquisitions are notorious for their failures, yet are found to be at least 26% more effective if cultural issues are addressed at the outset (Renaud, 2009). Yet this is rarely done.

If cultural misunderstandings are not resolved, this can lead to clashes in the workplace. In multi-cultural teams this can mean that productivity suffers; compounded further when working remotely.

Cultural differences may be found in the following approaches to work:

• Attitude to time: with some members showing up at precisely the prescribed hour and others being late
• Differences in communication styles with some being very direct and others indirect
• A focus on the task or the relationship
• Differing levels of accountability and assertiveness
• Focus on the context or the letter of the law/agreement#
• Levels of formality and hierarchy
• Levels of fatalism compared with personal autonomy
• A concern for process or results
• Differing attitudes to risk
• A desire for achievement or balance

These differences mean that in the workplace and in multi-cultural teams there are differing behaviours around protocols such as how to greet people, dress and exchange business cards. How to lead a meeting differs in terms of levels of formality, styles and expectations of how to behave especially concerning the amount of contribution expected or not expected from team members. Negotiations and the processes/structures involved in decision-making differs widely, with some cultures exhibiting a lot of personal autonomy and others deferring to either the wisdom of the group or the authority of the leader – or both. Furthermore, preferred organization structures differ across cultures with gender, rank, boss and subordinate relationships all having a bearing upon the structure. Conflict resolution will also differ as will motivation and reward structures, with some being more concerned with achievement orientation and others with process and consensus.

How can Leaders remain authentic across the globe?

With so many different ways of working to navigate how is it that global leaders manage to stay effective? Little wonder then that the organisation culture becomes touted as the ‘tune by which all shall dance’. This too comes at a cost as one party may be seen to impose its way on the other. Think about the impact of a ‘Western organisation’ imposing its will for engaged, assertive employees in a culture that thinks inactivity is wise lest a mistake might be made. Think about the impact of an ‘Eastern organisation’ planning for the long-term in a context that demands quarterly results.

Certainly, one thing leaders must not do is to stereotype. Cultural norms are simply an expression of the tendencies of the majority and do not constitute observed behaviour in every individual from that culture. An obvious statement, but one that is frequently overlooked.

Emotionally intelligent (EI) global leaders seek to understand the perspectives of their global ecosystem, but not at the expense of their own inner purpose. However, it should be noted that EI and the ability to read the ‘other’ does not automatically translate across borders. There are strict rules in most cultures for cultural expression with some cultures demanding active emotional expression whilst others ‘hide’ it (the USA and Japan for example). This affects our ability to demonstrate effective self-management, a critical pillar of EI. As an example, when we see a smiling face we may assume it is because the person is happy, and want to smile back. However, smiling is even frowned upon, literally not trusted in some cultures. That is why you do not see it very often in countries like Russia. Other examples are in the area of self-promotion which is a common expression of confidence in some cultures such as the USA, whereas it is often frowned upon in other cultures such as the UK. Similarly, according to a study comparing the emotional expression of anger in both the USA and Japan (Araki and Wiseman, 1996), found the American levels of expression to be much higher. These studies reinforce the findings that differences lie more typically in the nuances between cultures. Not so much in the what – we all experience the emotion of anger – but in the how. How it is expressed. And, according to Tsui (2007) whilst it is universally accepted that most people want to feel good, how they go about that differs widely. Working at the level of these very nuanced differences takes dedication to observe how others behave and respond as well as shining a mirror back on to oneself, to understand better our own culturally-imbued habitual responses.

So what can we do to adapt our emotional intelligence quotient when working globally. Here are some ideas:

1. In seeking to be authentic, leaders must be prepared to learn and to reflect on the meanings that their own culture has for them and how this affects their attitude to the organization culture and to their role as a leader. Only with this self-awareness will they be able to recognize a cultural difference. This self-awareness can be helped with many tools such as the International Profiler (TIP).
2. Learn to stop imposing our own ‘map’ onto others. This can be tricky if it is the organization culture demanding a certain code of conduct that is culturally-bound. We can stop compounding this by being very aware of our own cultural norms as stated above but then even more importantly to find a way to make it explicitly known that you are doing xyz because you are from xyz culture. I for example, am known to say to my more direct Dutch colleagues, ah I answered in that way because I was being English and indirect (in comparison with most Dutch people). If you find yourself in disagreement with another, or simply not understanding what happened, try to find at least three reasons for it happening. In that way, our own need to be right becomes loosened and we can start to see other possibilities for the situation.
3. Use a tool to help such as the Cross-Cultural KaleidoscopeÒ (Plaister-Ten, 2016). The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope is a tool that has been developed through research and tested in practice (see fig 2 below). Its purpose is to raise culturally-derived awareness and to facilitate culturally-appropriate responsibility. It incorporates the need to take a systems view of the situation in a multi-cultural context. A systems view takes the external factors that a leader has been exposed to over the course of their international career and over their lifespan. It therefore looks at the economic circumstances, the political, as well as historical and legal. It considers the arts and the social context, including national education systems as well as the more obvious need to identify cultural norms. Diversity in general and religious and spiritual beliefs are also provided for in the model. It even explores geographical and environmental factors. These elements are then examined in terms of their effect on the internal world of the leader. A concept known as the ‘cultural self’. For example, if a person grew up in a country with a history and family background of slavery, the inquiry delves into how this might have impacted their psyche and affected their leadership approach. Would they be more or less inclined to do as others tell them?

Fig 4: The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscopeâ

The last point concerns ‘unlearning’. As global leaders we need to unlearn faster than most. We need to be aware of those patterns that were formed in a different country or age or context that are no longer appropriate. A contemplation of culture as acquired, or learned and therefore “unlearned”, suggests that an awareness of those culturally bound responses no longer serving the situation is mandatory for 21st century leadership. This implies letting go of certain cultural constructs that a leader has grown up with or developed. Yet, a warning from Hofstede “unlearning is more difficult than learning for the first time” (2003, p. 4).

The global stage is a huge playground. Schneider and Barsoux (2003) compare the quest for cultural understanding with an exploration as deep as the ocean. But the rewards are immense. Developing a global mindset and maintaining curiosity about the world and the people in it is surely on of the greatest gifts available to mankind. To work with people from different countries, organisations, sectors and walks of life represents an opportunity to leverage the creativity and innovation inherent within diverse mindsets. We truly hope that you will enjoy the journey as much as we do.

References

Araki, F. Wiseman, R. (1996-7), Emotional Expression in the United States and Japan, Intercultural Communication Studies, V1:2.
Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 124–131.
Hall, T. E. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor.
Hamaguchi, E. (1985). A contextual model of the Japanese: Toward a methodological innovation in Japan studies. Journal of Japanese Studies, 11: 289–321.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2003). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. London: Profile.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd edition). New York: McGraw Hill.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership and Organisations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., &, Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37: 3–10.
Livermore, D. (2015b). Leading with Cultural Intelligence: The Real Secret to Success. New York: AMACOM.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. In: R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The Self in Social Psychology (pp. 339–367). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Molinsky, A. (2013), Common Language Doesn’t Equal Common Culture, Harvard Business Review.
Molinsky, A. (2015), Emotional Intelligence doesn’t Translate Across Borders, Harvard Business Review.
Plaister-Ten, J. (2016). The cross-cultural coaching kaleidoscope: a systems approach to coaching amongst different cultural influences, London: Karnac.
Renaud, M., (2009). Air France KLM: Lessons from a Successful Merger. Presentation delivered in York, UK: High-Performing International Teams, 17/9/2009.
Schneider, S. C., & Barsoux, J. L. (2003). Managing Across Cultures. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Triandis, H. C. (1972). The Analysis of Subjective Culture. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding The Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Tsui, J.L. (2007), Ideal Affect, Cultural Causes and Behavioural Consequences, Association for Psychological Science, Vol 2-No.3 pp. 242-259

 

This Whitepaper has been written by Jenny Plaister-Ten. Jenny is an Associate Coach to The Coaching Solution.

Jenny is also Director of 10 Consulting Ltd, a practice dedicated to the development of global leaders and their teams, following an international career in the IT industry, with Compaq/HP and ICL/Fujitsu. She has lived and worked in the USA, the Asia/Pacifc region and mainland Europe and ran her own consulting practice based in Singapore. She is a thought-leader in the impact of culture in the coaching relationship and upon global leaders. Her book, ‘The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope’, a systems approach to working amongst different cultural influences was published by Karnac in 2016.

If you are interested in working with Jenny, please contact info@thecoachingsolution.co.uk or call 07789 007591.