Scroll through many articles in Forbes, Fast Company, and even Harvard Business Review and you get the sense that leadership is a universal skill set that includes 5:00 a.m. workouts, letting people work autonomously, communicating transparently, and eliminating anything that resembles hierarchy. Yet this is not how the majority of people want to be led.
When I reviewed leadership content published over a five-year period including books, articles, seminars, and even business school curriculum, I found that roughly 90 percent of the content was designed for leading in individualist, egalitarian cultures.[1] But 70 percent of the world is collectivist and hierarchical, values that not only characterize people in Shanghai and Dubai but increasingly people in Copenhagen and Omaha. And while in the past, it would have been hard to find a more hierarchical context than India, many younger Indians grew up in families where they were empowered to voice their opinions and challenge authority. If you expect every thirty-two-year-old Indian engineer to address you formally, you may be surprised.
Today, most leadership contexts include people with a diversity of values and backgrounds on the same team. Organizations need culturally intelligent leaders—leaders who can influence diverse groups to work toward common goals within a global context. Leading with cultural intelligence is not about geography. It’s about having the dynamic agility to lead anyone, anywhere.
Despite the compelling evidence for why leaders need cultural intelligence, a great deal of leadership advice is written as if everyone wants to be led the same way. It often includes kernels of truth; but leading with cultural intelligence begins by critically rethinking a lot of what passes as essential leadership advice in light of the diverse people and contexts where you lead. Here are a few examples:
“Admit your mistakes openly to build trust.”
I trust you more if you’re aware of your mistakes and own them. But most people in the world aren’t like me. If we’re leading people from a face-saving culture, it can be extremely disorienting to hear your leader openly admit a mistake. Why are you going on about this? What’s your motive for talking about this publicly? Leaders are given a position of authority and honor; hearing them grovel about what they did wrong may actually erode trust. Implicitly, everyone knows when something has gone wrong. Many team members prefer that their leader makes up for it indirectly without drawing more attention to it. Owning mistakes is essential for all leaders. But how we talk about our mistakes with those we lead depends on the context.
“Get to the point.”
There’s also recurring emphasis in leading materials about the importance of prioritizing the big picture and long-term results. “The people you lead don’t want to hear you drone on about the details. Get to the point.” Well—maybe. But even if you don’t lead people internationally, you almost certainly have individuals on your team who want you to wade into some details both to fill in the blanks and to assure them you’ve thought this through carefully. While some individuals prefer that we get to the bottom line quickly, others (for example, many Europeans, engineers, and academics) want to hear how you arrived at your conclusions before you too quickly “get to the point.”
“Ask people what they want.”
When I talk with leaders about being mindful of the diverse preferences and values among those they lead, someone inevitably says, “I just ask people what they prefer.” I appreciate the intent, and it’s a good starting point. But there are many loopholes to this approach. First, many status-conscious individuals will tell you what they think you want to hear rather than what they actually prefer. And the more hierarchical the culture, the more people will be confused why you’re even asking them this question. You’re the boss! Second, this approach assumes those we lead know what they want. Just as Steve Jobs knew that market research would not lead to the innovative iPhone he was after, so also, our teams may not always have the language or self-awareness to articulate what they prefer, need, or want.
“Here’s what women want” (or millennials, Ukrainians, Black professionals, etc.)
Rethinking this advice is tricky. Given that the workplace was designed by and for men, I support the importance of empathizing with the overarching realities that are unique to women or any marginalized group. But can we really reduce the desires of half the planet to ten points about how to lead women effectively? One of the things that has emerged in our research on cultural intelligence is the value of “sophisticated stereotypes”—research-based tendencies that serve as an unspoken starting point for what someone may want based on one dimension of their identity. But we have to hold these sophisticated stereotypes loosely and use direct interaction with individuals to determine what they want. Go ahead and educate yourself about the figured worlds represented on your team; but apply that information dynamically based on the people you lead in the real world.
“Never state your price first.”
This is a classic rule of negotiation that I come across almost weekly. It shows up in advice for sales leaders, entrepreneurs, and to job candidates who are negotiating salaries. Several years ago, I was leading a seminar with an international group of participants, and someone asked the consultants in the room how they approach pricing their services. A couple of North Americans said that they start with a consultative sales approach, followed by asking the potential client what their budget is and only after that, providing a quote. A Malaysian woman in the group said, “That would never work for me in Asia. The first thing they ask me is, ‘What is the price?’ and if I did all this dancing around about their needs and budget, they would dismiss me immediately.” Many expect that business relationships in more collectivist cultures will be more indirect about money and prefer to ease into it with small talk; in my experience, many of these business contexts are much more to the point about cost than what I experience in the West.
My point is less about ignoring the dominant leadership advice and more about reframing it through the lens of cultural intelligence. You may still decide to apply some of these ideas, regardless of the context, because they may fit your values as a leader. For example, I can’t lead authentically without acknowledging my mistakes and inadequacies. But I change how, when, and where I discuss my mistakes based on the context.
Leading in today’s digital, diverse, world requires the cultural intelligence to think strategically and consciously about the individuals and contexts involved and the adaptations needed. When we lead with cultural intelligence, we’re much more likely to lead everyone inclusively and effectively.
Learn everything you can from successful leaders and the endless books, seminars, and articles that are available. But filter it all through the lens of what it means for you to lead effectively while maneuvering the twists and turns of a complex world with unclear boundaries. The continually shifting landscape of global leadership can be disorienting, but it can also be life giving; experience and intuition alone are not enough. Cultural intelligence offers a way through the maze that’s not only effective but also invigorating and fulfilling.
[Excerpt from Chapter 1 of the brand new edition of Leading with Cultural Intelligence]
[1] The five year period reviewed was roughly 2018-2022.