Respectful Engagement Is the Secret

Having too much respect for culture can backfire. I remember my first international assignment: I was tasked to get in touch with marketing managers in 30 different countries and ask them which products from their portfolio they would agree to have eliminated as part of a "global portfolio streamlining" effort. I was excited, but also rather anxious about the task. I had no professional experience abroad at the time, and never had any training in cross-cultural communication. I knew enough to know that I had communication and trust barriers to overcome, I felt it was my responsibility to fully understand the cultural norms and practices of 30 different countries and to adjust my behavior accordingly.

My hand was trembling when I dialed the phone number of the first marketing manager, the representative from Japan – it took me four attempts to get that phone number right. And during the conversation with my Japanese colleague I was 90% focused on avoiding any and all cultural blunders, and only 10% focused on engaging my colleague in a constructive conversation about his product portfolio. As you would expect, I was not successful in identifying any Japanese product candidates for streamlining.

Since then, I have often seen managers follow one of two patterns of behavior in cross-cultural encounters: one group approaches these situations with complete disregard for cultural differences (sometimes proudly so), the other group with too much regard for cultural differences (this was my camp, initially). While the first approach is clearly a recipe for failure, the second approach often fails, too – for less obvious reasons.
Too much regard for cultural differences – even when its based on a nuanced understanding of cultures, and not on simple stereotypes – can lead managers to put culture "on a pedestal", to make culture something untouchable and non-negotiable. It can create respectful distance, an overemphasis on political correctness, and avoidance of presumed "sensitive" issues.

Respectful distance, in business, is not a good formula for creating value, for learning, or for progress – for that you need respectful engagement. For me, respectful engagement is characterized by a desire to interact (not just to co-exist), a drive to inquire and question (not just to acknowledge), and an emphasis on openness (not just politeness). Respectful engagement seeks to transcend cultural differences, and therefore can be called a "transcultural" approach.

Respectful engagement, in my experience, often comes naturally for managers who have lived and worked in multiple foreign cultures – the cosmopolitans Bettina Gehrke is writing about in her article. But for most companies, cosmopolitans constitute a small minority of the workforce. Hence, the key question is: How can companies foster a culture of respectful engagement for all employees?

The short answer: by cultivating an appreciation for commonalities and differences. Commonalities help people connect with each other. These can be "positive commonalities": goals we all strive for, values we all share and pledge to uphold. When we focus on important commonalities we share with others, we often find our differences to be a source of synergy, rather than seeds of conflict. Just as important as positive commonalities are "negative commonalities": we all make mistakes, none of our cultures has a monopoly on the truth, etc. These create a mutual tolerance for errors and frictions in interaction. Both positive and negative commonalities help instill a healthy sense of humility: "I'm not perfect. I don't have all the answers. But I am part of something that is bigger than myself." Procter & Gamble has very successfully used this orientation towards positive and negative commonalities to fuel global collaboration in its open innovation program "connect + develop".

Companies must also celebrate differences. Celebrating differences gives psychological safety to individuals, because it provides space for their unique views. It allows individuals to develop their unique cultural identity through interaction with others. It stimulates curiosity about others, and encourages people to share and discuss diverging views, to seek value from conflicts and disagreements. Microsoft provides a great example for this orientation with its excellent "People of Microsoft" blog: it recently featured a story about four of the company's designers, all of whom had completely distinctive, diametrically opposing approaches to design. Clearly the company believes that value comes from those differences.

The balance between appreciating commonalities and appreciating differences is crucial. An overemphasis on commonalities is stifling. This is where most transcultural efforts derail: they push cross-cultural interactions towards excessive integration and assimilation, towards the development of a hegemonic fusion culture that incorporates all other cultures and leaves no room for any other culture. Likewise, an overemphasis on differences can become a seedbed for narcissism and mannerism, both of which create barriers for open dialogue and exchange.

Leaders who foster a culture of respectful engagement, and who balance appreciation for commonalities and differences enable their employees to make a fundamental shift in mindset, with implications far beyond the workplace: to see culture not as a problem, but as an opportunity.