All humans bleed red and smile in the same language.
We have many common elements in our shared humanity. However, as we think about doing business beyond our borders, there are many cultural cues to consider. I have had years of trial and error, working with global teams in London, Germany, Switzerland, South Korea, India, Ireland, Philippines, Pakistan, Kenya, etc. I’ve learned that a few small nuances can make potentially positive interactions go completely awry and vice versa.
It’s important to:
Based on the LITT framework, here are 4 key elements to keep in mind in order to prevent team dysfunction and connect in spite of the distance: language, identity, technique, and technology.
Corrections and additions are welcome! Contact me.
Good communication among coworkers drives effective knowledge sharing, decision making, coordination, and, ultimately, performance results. In global teams, varying levels of fluency with the chosen common language are inevitable.
There are also other variations to adjust to such as spelling differences in words like color versus colour or organisation versus organization and terms like lift versus elevator or trunk and boot. And there are differences like the MM/DD/YYYY date format in the USA compared to DD/MM/YYYY elsewhere in the world.
In the ideal world, strong speakers would dial down dominance by slowing down their speaking pace, and using fewer idioms, slang terms, and esoteric cultural references when addressing the group. They would actively seek confirmation that they’ve been understood, and practice active listening by rephrasing others’ statements for clarification or emphasis. This hardly happens.
Less fluent speakers are forced to extend themselves by monitoring the frequency of their responses in meetings to ensure that their contributions are heard. They also need to confirm that they have been understood, by routinely asking if others are following them. It can be tough for nonnative speakers to make this leap, yet doing so keeps them from being marginalized.
Many of us suffer from a cult of ignorance. While we think of ourselves as open-minded and objective, in fact our approach is often filtered and even obscured by pre-existing notions and ideas – by our upbringing, our values, our past experiences.
In the context of global teams, it’s important to see those filters for what they are—an all-pervasive influence that profoundly colors our relationships with people, circumstances, and even ourselves. An awareness of these filters also provides the ability to strike the limits that they impose, allows for a refreshing freedom.
With this recognition, how we approach people of different backgrounds, situations, and life in general can alter dramatically. Global teams work most smoothly when members “get” where their colleagues are coming from and take into account cultural cues.
For example, the way we communicate with our friends at an open-air concert is different from the way we communicate at the library. Imagine your friends’ reaction if you were whispering to them at a concert or shouting at them in a library. In the first case it’s unlikely you’ll be heard and in the second case, you’ll certainly catch some angry looks before being escorted out.
This illustrates the hidden contexts from which we live and cultural cues which are not often explicitly communicated. In his book “Beyond Culture,” Edward Hall identifies and describes how low-context and high-context cultures need to be approached differently for any form of communication. Low context cultures can be perceived as impatient or aggressive whereas high context cultures can be perceived dishonest, misleading or long-winded.
Here are some differences:
There are many considerations that factor into our technique for communicating and connecting with others in geographically dispersed teams: time of day, physical location, ambient noise, etc.
As leaders, there are 3 other factors that should inform our technique: the location where team members are based, the number of sites, and the number of employees who work at each site.
Any perceived power imbalance can set up a negative dynamic. Geographically dispersed team members often come to feel that there are in-groups and out-groups. This situation can be exacerbated when team members at one site feel like their needs or contributions are ignored. For example, people in the majority group may feel resentment toward the minority group, believing that the latter will try to get away with contributing less than its fair share. Meanwhile, those in the minority group may believe that the majority is usurping what little power and voice they have.
When adapting to a new cultural environment, a savvy leader will avoid making assumptions about what behaviors mean. Take a step back, watch, and listen. In America, someone who says, “Yes, I can do this” likely means she is willing and able to do what you asked. In India, however, the same statement may simply signal that she wants to try—not that she’s confident of success. Before drawing conclusions, therefore, ask a lot of questions.
The modes of communication used by global teams must be carefully considered. Videoconferencing, for instance, allows rich communication in which both context and emotion can be perceived. E‑mail offers greater ease and efficiency but lacks contextual cues. Other communication tools like WhatsApp, Slack, Teams and Chat fall somewhere in between.
In making decisions about which technology to use, a leader must ask the following:
Teleconferencing and videoconferencing enable real-time (instant) conversations. E‑mail and certain social media formats require users to wait for the other party to respond. Choosing between instant and delayed forms of communication can be especially challenging for global teams, particularly when a team spans multiple time zones.
Instant technologies are valuable when leaders need to persuade others to adopt their viewpoint. But if they simply want to share information, then delayed methods such as e‑mail are simpler, more efficient, and less disruptive to people’s lives.
Leaders must also consider the team’s interpersonal dynamics. If the team has a history of conflict, technology choices that limit the opportunities for real-time emotional exchanges may yield the best results.
Flexibility and appreciation for diversity are at the heart of a thriving global team. Leaders must expect problems and patterns to change or repeat themselves as teams shift, disband, and regroup. If leaders can mitigate difficulties caused by language differences and identity issues, while marshaling technology to improve communication among geographically dispersed colleagues, distance is sure to shrink, not expand.
When that happens, teams can become truly representative of the “global village”—not just because of their international makeup, but also because their members feel mutual trust and a sense of kinship.
Leave a Reply