Cultural Inclusion: How to Lead Effectively Across Cultures

When Cultural Difference Becomes Cultural Friction

Let me start with a story. My daughter works for a large global IT solutions company, and her team had the unenviable task of designing a cloud system from scratch for a global bank. The project was estimated to take two years: they were told they had one.

To achieve that, they needed to at least double the size of the coding squad. Over dinner, my daughter started telling me about the new squad as new members came on, predominantly based in India. Initially, all seemed to be going well, but over time I started to hear a familiar rhetoric that I’ve heard through my work over the last twelve years or so.

The project was behind schedule. When I asked why, she said: “Well, it doesn’t help that we work with people from India who aren’t qualified to do the job.”

The irony was that my daughter wasn’t even qualified herself. She was a degree apprentice working on a live, high-pressure project with no formal IT qualifications at all. So I asked her, the next time she was chatting to some of these colleagues on Slack, to ask them a bit about their backgrounds.

It transpired that all of the South Asian colleagues she talked to had at least a master’s level computer science degree. So what was going on?

The Role of In-Group and Out-Group Bias

The unconscious bias sitting behind much of this is the idea of in-group and out-group bias, or intergroup bias: a pattern of favouring members of our own group over members of another group.

What’s fascinating about this well-recognised type of unconscious bias is that we tend to believe that the people in our in-group are more skilled and that what they do and say is of a higher standard. At the same time, we can automatically assume lower or poorer standards among those we perceive to be in our out-group. In this instance, that was the coding team based in India.

And this is where leadership becomes really important. How should the squad leader or manager recognise and manage what’s going on?

In answering this, it’s helpful to consider what I call the ‘cultural friction chain’.

We start with difference. Difference itself is neutral. We have one culture in the UK, where my daughter was based, another culture in India and potentially different languages and ways of communicating. None of that is inherently a problem.

The problem comes when we misinterpret those differences. That misinterpretation can lead to friction or silence – people not speaking up when they disagree or when they think they’re being asked to do something that’s wrong. Instead, they may simply go along with it.

At the end of that chain is performance. Performance suffers because of the misinterpretation, creating performance drag and, ultimately, potentially disengagement. The misinterpretation part is the bit that’s often missing when we talk about cultural inclusion.

Cross-cultural leadership isn’t simply about being aware of difference and thinking, “I know what Indian culture is like.” It’s about managing misinterpretation within your team, including your own misinterpretations, and recognising the impact those can have on performance.

Leaders need to rely on structure, not assumptions.

Where Do Cultural Misunderstandings Happen?

There are four areas where I see cultural misunderstandings coming up again and again:

1. Communication style
2. Giving and receiving feedback
3. Time
4. Authority

There are many more, but these four provide a useful starting point. And there are two practical tools that can help us deal with them: cultural curiosity and cultural contracting.

Let’s start with communication style, because that underpins absolutely everything.

Are You Able to ‘Read the Air’?

In the 1970s, anthropologist Edward T. Hall identified a difference in communication styles which he described as low-context and high-context communication.

• Low-context communication is generally clear, simple and explicit, and often relies on things being written down as well.
• High-context communication is much more layered, nuanced and implicit

You can read more about this topic in my article High Context vs Low Context Communication (and why even good leaders can still get it wrong).

The USA is probably one of the most low-context cultures. What’s said is generally what’s meant, there’s less reliance on sarcasm and communication tends to be very straightforward. At the other end of the spectrum, countries such as Japan, Korea and China tend to have much more layered or nuanced communication, where what we see can be as important as what we hear.

I particularly like the Japanese phrase “KY”, although it can be used as a slightly derogatory term. It translates as “cannot read the air”, and that captures the difference between high-context and low-context communication really well.

In some cultures, you have to be able to read between the lines. You need to understand things around authority and honour, when you speak, how you speak, your cadence, how much eye contact you make, the volume you use and whether it’s acceptable to speak over someone.

I was recently working with the European head office of a Japanese firm. At dinner, I happened to be sitting next to the CEO and it was fascinating to watch the different cultures around the table. A North American colleague was firing lots of questions at the CEO, while two Japanese colleagues sitting nearby were quiet and didn’t even make eye contact with him.

It struck me that they might have thought their North American colleague wasn’t “reading the air”. This was a very authoritative person and, from their cultural perspective, being respectful meant being quiet and not firing questions at him. But for the North American colleague, asking questions was a way of showing interest and was completely culturally appropriate.

At one point, one of the Japanese colleagues simply raised his eyes slightly and looked more intently at the CEO. The CEO immediately said: “Do you have a question?” That was the culturally appropriate way for him to indicate that he wanted to speak.

When the Same Words Mean Different Things

We see the same thing in the language we use. As a British person, this particularly makes me chuckle because we tend to rely quite heavily on sarcasm and humour.

A British person might say: “With all due respect…” Taken literally, somebody from a more direct culture might think, “Great, they’re listening to me.” But what the British person probably means is: “I think you’re wrong.”

Similarly, “Could you consider some other options?” might actually mean, “Your idea isn’t a good one.” Somebody from a more direct culture might simply think that a decision hasn’t been made yet.

We can see the same problem when high-context and low-context cultures work together. A Japanese colleague might say: “It might be difficult to implement.” What they may actually mean is: “This idea will not work and we are politely declining.”

A Western European colleague could hear exactly the same words and think: “They think it’s possible. It’s just going to be challenging.”

You can see how easily misunderstanding creeps in.

Why Feedback Can Feel Completely Different Across Cultures

Feedback is another area where this happens all the time. In the UK, many of us are familiar with the praise-criticism-praise sandwich. We give a little bit of praise, get to the meaty bit in the middle that we really want to say, and then finish with another little bit of praise.

Many years ago, I was designing some e-learning for a very well-known German company. There were several German people involved, alongside a Polish colleague who was Head of Learning. We had a meeting to look at the first draft I’d created and, as far as I could see, they absolutely slammed it. They criticised every little bit.

Afterwards, I felt terrible. I’d never received feedback like that about any of my work, so I wrote an apology email to the Head of Learning. I said: “I’m so sorry. I’ve obviously totally misunderstood the brief. Of course, I’ll correct anything that needs to be corrected.”

She wrote back: “What do you mean? We thought it was great.”

We ended up jumping on another call because we really needed to understand what was going on. She explained, as did one of her German colleagues, that if they’d presented all of the praise and then wrapped it up with more praise at the end, that would have felt dishonest.

The purpose of the meeting was to improve the e-learning programme Mix was developing for them. It wasn’t necessary to talk about what was good; they needed to talk about what needed to change. I’d experienced one of those cultural misunderstandings first-hand.

If I hadn’t gone back and had that open conversation, conflict would have been created – certainly in my mind. If this had been an internal team, over the longer term it could also have led to disengagement. That’s how quickly misunderstandings of each other’s cultures can start to affect working relationships.

Use Cultural Curiosity

We need to be curious about how we like to receive feedback and what feels normal to us, but we also need to ask our colleagues: “How do you like to receive feedback?”

There are three useful moves of cultural curiosity.

1. First, notice: something feels off.
2. Second, wonder: might I be interpreting this through my own cultural lens?
3. Then ask: “Can you help me understand how you’re approaching this?”

It doesn’t have to be a mystery. We have to make the unconscious conscious.

For British people, a good way of thinking about that feeling that something is “off” is to imagine somebody jumping a queue. Queuing is a strong British cultural norm, so if somebody pushes in front of us, it can feel completely wrong – almost like an injustice.

That feeling is worth paying attention to, and is very similar to the feeling I had when I received that feedback. Something felt wrong because it didn’t fit my cultural expectations. When that happens, stop and ask yourself whether you’re interpreting somebody else’s behaviour through your own cultural lens.

Even Time Isn’t as Straightforward as it Seems

You’d think time would be pretty straightforward. There are sixty seconds in a minute and sixty minutes in an hour. How can cultures interpret time differently? But they do.

Some cultures have a much more ‘monochronic’ or linear approach to time, while others are more ‘polychronic’ and consider time to be flexible.

• If you come from a culture that really values linear time, you’re likely to stick closely to schedules and emphasise promptness. There can be an element of professionalism attached to being on time, and you may also be much more deadline-focused.
• In more polychronic cultures, multiple things might be happening at once. People may be more adaptable to change and happier to be interrupted to go and do something else. There can be much more emphasis on flexibility and relationships, with a greater focus on the present moment.

Think back to my daughter’s tightly scheduled cloud project. The UK is pretty monochronic, while India sits much further towards the polychronic end. The teams would often disagree about when things were going to be completed or whether something had been firmly agreed.

What appeared to be “set” to one team wasn’t necessarily interpreted in exactly the same way by the other. Again, a misunderstanding of time led to disagreement, disengagement and ultimately performance drag.

What Does ‘On Time’ Actually Mean?

I was recently working with a well-known sportswear brand in Amsterdam. There were 36 different nationalities working in one European headquarters, so I asked them a simple question: what does being “on time” mean?

For some people, it meant arriving one or two minutes before a Teams meeting. For others, if a meeting started at 12pm, arriving at exactly 12pm was on time. That’s what I’d probably say because that’s a British norm. For others, arriving two, five or even ten minutes later could still be considered on time.

Everybody laughed, but it was also a real lightbulb moment. A South African colleague then explained the language around “now”. There’s “right now”, but there’s also “now”, “now now” and “just now”.

“Just now” is my favourite because it can mean an unknown amount of time. It could refer to a few minutes, tomorrow or potentially never. So even something as apparently simple as time needs explanation.

What does “on time” mean in your culture? Or perhaps we need to ask a more practical question: “I’ve noticed we’re approaching deadlines slightly differently. How do you tend to manage them?”

Authority Can Change Who Speaks Up

Authority is another area we have to unpack with leaders because cultures can have very different styles, ranging from highly egalitarian to highly hierarchical. Regardless of culture, most of us have some tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinions of an authority figure and to be influenced by that opinion.

Imagine a leader starts a meeting by saying: “Here’s what we need to discuss. Here’s what I’m thinking.” What have they done in that moment? They’ve influenced everybody else in the room.

If somebody comes from a culture where authority isn’t usually questioned, they may now feel they have to agree with the leader, despite the fact that the leader is inviting opinions. We have to fix the structure of the system.

And with this one, the solution is fairly straightforward: leaders speak last. Introduce what needs to be discussed and then ask: “What do you think?” That might include inviting people individually: “What do you think? What’s your opinion?”

Then the leader speaks last. That allows you to have much fuller access to the diversity of your team and helps to build psychological safety across cultures. Read more on Authority Bias.

Cultural Curiosity Needs to Lead to Learning

We do need to be careful about stereotyping. We can’t say that everybody from one culture is exactly the same. Culture gives us a useful starting point, but that’s what all is: a starting point.

It’s also relative to your own culture. In fact, I’d say that learning about other cultures has probably taught me more about my own culture than it has about other people’s.

And perhaps we need to rethink the old golden rule that says we should treat others as we’d like to be treated. There’s a much better rule: treat others as they would like to be treated.

Don’t Assume Cultural Alignment – Design It

The highest-performing global teams don’t leave culture to chance. They make it explicit. Over the years, Mix has developed a way of doing that with leaders through what we call cultural contracting.

These are honest, two-way conversations where we explore openly how our different cultures work. That might include communication – for example, what does it mean to you if somebody speaks over you? What does it mean if somebody gesticulates a lot, compared with somebody who uses very little eye contact?

It might include how we make decisions and how we lead. How does somebody like to be led or managed? Do they want lots of autonomy? Will they push back if you micromanage them? Is lots of specific guidance culturally inappropriate to them, or is that exactly what they expect from a leader?

We also need to talk about giving and receiving feedback, handling disagreement, time, meeting behaviour and trust. These are key things we need to establish as leaders.

It’s a useful conversation to have at the beginning of a project, but it’s also something leaders can explore with new starters. And it needs to be two-way. Ask people: “What’s normal for you around receiving feedback in your culture?”

We shouldn’t assume alignment. We have to design it.

Do You Need to Dial Down Your Own Culture?

I find it helpful to think about cultural norms like a soundboard. We all have certain cultural habits that feel normal to us, but we can dial them up or down.

Sometimes we need to dial down our own cultural norm and dial up somebody else’s approach so that we can find a consistent sound that works for the whole team. So, if you’re struggling to work with somebody from another culture, consider what the opposite of your own norm might be. Then ask yourself: do I need to dial down my culture?

Cultural inclusion isn’t about learning a set of rules for dealing with people from different countries. People aren’t stereotypes, and people themselves change – particularly when they live or work within different cultures.

It’s about becoming more aware of the assumptions we bring with us, recognising when something feels “off” and having the curiosity to explore why. Because when we stop assuming alignment and start talking openly about how we communicate, work, lead and collaborate, we have a much better chance of turning cultural difference into something that strengthens performance rather than creating friction.

How Mix Can Help

At Mix, we work with leaders and organisations to build greater cultural understanding and create more inclusive, effective teams. Our approach helps leaders recognise where cultural misunderstandings can arise, develop greater cultural curiosity and put practical structures in place that support people to work effectively across cultures.

If you’d like support developing culturally inclusive leadership within your organisation, get in touch with the Mix team to discuss how we can help.