For almost my entire professional life, I have been bridging acute cultural differences with my clients and coaching other consultants how to do similar work.

Some of the cultural gaps (UK-USA; Germany-USA; France-UK) are challenging but bridgeable via mutual adaptation on the part of both sides and some basic emotional intelligence.

However some of the cultural gaps are phenomenally large and immensely challenging. US-Japan, Thailand-US, Philippines-Israel, Japan-Mexico as well as all post merger integration work come to mind.

Probably the most frequent question I am asked by people I coach is “how do we bridge these gaps and meet somewhere in the middle”.

My answer is that meeting somewhere in the middle is just another western cultural bias.

Some cultures are more flexible (Dutch, Scandinavian e.g.) whilst others are more  rigid and self centered. Some cultures value meeting in the middle/compromise whilst others see meeting in the middle as weakness. Some cultures look at their way of doing things as the right way (US), others look at things more pragmatically, whilst others have their way of doing things embedded in religious or ideological context.

Meeting somewhere in the middle is rarely the way differences get bridged.

Working in  acute diversity means living with lots of pain, constant attempts at mutual adjustment, power struggles and constant misunderstandings.

Building solid personal relationships, making the right staffing choices, not over-relying on process, possessing a good sense of humour and acquiring cultural humility do the trick, NOT meeting half way.

My latest article emphasises other western biases of OD.

The goal of this post is to illustrate that perceptions of  what is cheeky behaviour, aka chutzpah, vary from culture to culture.

The Hebrew term word chutzpah (חוצפה) is used to describe overstepping the boundaries of accepted behaviour.It has been translated as gall, excessive audacity and cheek. I will use the word chutzpah and cheek interchangeably in this post.

• When a culture emphasizes that authority needs to be obeyed and people need to do what they are told, anyone who does not defer to authority is seen as cheeky. Thus, many Asians perceive the behaviour of many Anglo Saxons, Germans, Scandinavians and Dutch to be  cheeky.
• When a culture emphasizes believes that if “ I do not overstep my role because systems are faulty, I am betraying what good corporate citizenship”, he will be seen as cheeky by others who do not share that belief. .Thus, Americans, Canadians and Germans tend to see Israelis as cheeky.
• When people in one culture keeps opinions/thoughts to themselves, people in less discrete cultures as seen as seen as cheeky. Many Thais observe American organizational behaviour as being cheeky, since American staff will express their “opinions”, speak out in meetings, ask questions and not be outwardly overly deferential to authority. Clearly, the Thais have their opinions as well, and they are no less critical of authority; yet keep the Thais keep their organizational opinions to themselves.

Here are two real mind boggling cases on chutzpah/cheek that I have dealt with in the last year.

• An Israeli asks his Indian counterpart to change priorities for the next 2 hours; his Indian peers says, “I need to ask my boss”. When the Israeli counters “Why”, the Indian saw the Israeli as very cheeky.The Israeli saw the  Indian as “hiding behind his boss”. The Israeli read the Indian behaviour as obtuse cheekiness.

• Germans often see Israelis as cheeky since the Israelis deviate from plans, making “cowboy” behaviour into an ideology.  When as Israeli encounters a German who is following the plan, the Israelis may see this as a major abdication of responsibility and even chutzpah, because the Germans are seen as righteously implementing plans, even if they are wrong.

It is interesting that the Israeli worker sees almost everyone as less responsible that the Israelis are. The reason for this is that an Israeli worker/manager believes that

• doing what you are told is probably the wrong this to do
• procedures need to be questioned all the time
• conflict of ideas bring harmony
• overstepping your role is brings positive results

I facilitate several workshops a year on fostering trust and the cheek/chutzpah issue is a major trust maker/breaker in global organizations where people have an intense mutual dependency.

The term trust is overused; trust means too many things to different people. In the global workplace. The term trust is thus rendered useless, for all intents and purposes.

For example, here is a dynamic between Germans and others with whom they work:  Follow the process and I will trust you; when I trust you, I will follow the process.

Or another example seen between Chinese and Americans: Mr. Wu and Mr. Smith sign a 40 million dollar deal. Then Mr Wu asks Mr Smith to hire his son for a year so that the son  can get a visa to the US. Smith does not trust Wu because he is corrupt. Wu does not trust Smith because “I just did him a favour, and he won’t even help me with my son”.

There are of course many more examples of words which lose their meaning in the global workplace; in a previous post I elaborated on the term  respect.

I have spoken over the years I have been consulting with thousands of people who do trust one another, and I have developed ten statements which operationalize what trust is. Here in the public domain, I will share 3 of the ten.

1) We represent one anothers’ views when the other party is absent.

2) We implement what we decide upon.

3) We assume positive intent.

Many cultures shun confrontation of any kind in the work place, the most extreme examples being Thailand and the Philippines, as well as many other places in Asia, the Middle East and South America.

In these cultures, verbal agreement is given to show respect, give face, preserve harmony and avoid embarrassment.

So how does a Westerner go  about verifying if the verbal agreement being expressed is more than just “being polite”?

1) A very close and trusting relationship will inevitably over time enable you to get more “meaty” input.

2) Use a third party. If you have spoken to X and are not sure what she thinks, ask Y if X agrees with you or not.

3) Ask the same thing in many ways. Assume for example, that you have spoken to X to inform her that product documentation will be available only in English, and X must “manage the customer for at least a  year” until local documentation is available.  X has given an apparent yes.  To make sure, ask X, “Will the client think our company is arrogant?” “What are the risks?” “How will this impact your credibility”? “Please tell me risks I am not seeing”? “Would you prefer I change my decision?”

4) Listen to what is not being said. For example “that could work” is different than “that will work”!

5) Is body language affirming what the words are saying? If X is looking down or away from from you whilst agreeing, you have your answer.

6) Do not use cell phones or emails to verify understanding of complex issues. Be there in person.

A helpful glossary: 

• This could work may mean-this won’t work.
• I need to think about it, but it’s a good idea- may mean-rubbish.
• I will do, may mean- I will do albeit I don’t agree.
• Not bad, may mean- piss poor.
• Yes, may mean-No.
• Please explain, may mean- No.
• Ok, may mean, -it’s your dime.

OD, HR, cross cultural specialists, change managers and coaches often promulgate the importance of transparency in organizations.

Transparency is seen as a higher form of being, someone we should all strive for. Transparency is almost a religion for many professionals who support present day organizing. Transparency is almost seen like the English language-the only way to do business.

The only problem is that transparency is not universally valued, by any means.

Here are a few different points of view which “compete” with the Religion of Transparency.

1) “Muddy the water and catch the fish”. In other words, ambiguity, not transparency, enables things to get done.

2) Discretion, not transparency, is what is needed to deal with delicate situations.

3) When the reality does not look good, make sure that reality at least looks good; this is done by face saving.

4) Transparency is Religion of the oppressor, who supports  our being open….and then controls us.

5) Transparency is a frailty of the present ruling elite. They did not get to be elite by being transparent however.

In some cultures, the use of enthusiasm to inspire, engage and motivate make sense. Some, not all. Not even most. Beware.

The use of enthusiasm to inspire, engage and motivate certainly cannot be applied  universally.

It is very hard for wow-wowers to acknowledge how punishing cheer-leading and wow wowing can be to those people with different cultural assumptions than those cultures which wow wow.

Here are a few indications where enthusiasm needs to be curtailed.

1) In detailed driven cultures, enthusiasm is seen as lack of attention to details, and this glosses over the “real issues” critical to success. (Japan, Israel, Germany)

2) In cultures where cynicism as opposed to optimism is an inspiring force. (FSE, Eastern Europe)

3) In cultures where excess verbiage may be seen as noisy. (Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines)

4) In situations where enthusiasm is perceived as “asking ME to take risks” in an unsafe environment.

5) When the wow–wower bearing good news flies in on Monday and leaves on Thursday.

6) In pragmatic cultures which emphasise that doing is more important than talking. (Holland, Germany, Israel)

7) In paranoid cultures, where exuding enthusiasm means “someone is lying to me” (FSU, China)

Dear blog subscribers,

In order to clean up the spam, all blog subscriptions were deleted and a new subscription system installed.

Please re register on the right side or below this post– sorry for the trouble.

Allon