娇色导航

Individual, organizational, socio-geographical and other contexts shape how employees and leaders perceive reality, behave and form expectations. Recognizing these contexts enables timely identification, addressing and prevention or resolution of issues, such as via targeted mentoring, coaching, training and other interventions, whereas neglecting them can cause adverse consequences such as misalignment, friction, poor morale, reduced performance and higher turnover. Drawing on scholarly research and personal anecdotes, while putting a special focus on the IT sector, this article examines key contextual factors.

When I first moved, from overseas, to work in the highly culturally diverse U.S. tech industry, where , countries with very different workplace (or general) cultural norms compared to the U.S. or The West, as will be further established, I encountered a range of workplace behaviors that, at times, struck me as unusual, even frustrating. These reactions were rooted in differences in cultural norms—something I only came to understand in hindsight. It’s likely my behavior or expectations also seemed misaligned to others.

Where I came from, for example, it was not uncommon for a junior employee to challenge a top executive during an all-hands meeting. In fact, I witnessed a junior colleague do exactly that; he is now a senior manager at the same company. However, in other organizations I’ve worked in, even managers hesitated to speak up and challenge leadership openly. A behavior viewed as bold and constructive in one culture can be perceived as disrespectful or disruptive in another.

Another culture shock I experienced was in how feedback is relayed and interpreted. In some cultures, saying “that is an interesting idea, we should think about whether we can find an even better avenue” signals actual appreciation and interest in pursuing the idea. In others, it may be a polite dismissal, effectively meaning, “Don’t ever bring that up again. Oh, and go think about how stupid that was.”

Understanding these cultural, generational, organizational and other nuances is essential in today’s industrial landscape, particularly in the highly global and diverse tech industry. As leaders, recognizing that context shapes perception can help us communicate more effectively, foster collaboration and build stronger, more inclusive teams.

The national cultural background factor

Significant differences between norms and values of individuals of different cultural backgrounds should be considered not only when interacting with employees, vendors or customers overseas, but also in the context of the diverse workforce within a single site. While migrants may adapt over time to their host culture, this takes time.

• : In high power distance cultures, hierarchical and authority boundaries are more clearly drawn, decision-making is more centralized and subordinates may hesitate to proactively or candidly speak up to supervisors or question, push back or express doubts about their decisions. In contrast, in low-power-distance cultures, decisions are more consultative and democratic, with employees expecting more involvement in making them, tend to speak up more and question or challenge authority and boundaries between hierarchical levels are less strictly enforced. Misalignment on this may be perceived as rudeness, disrespect, disruption, being undervalued or as a failure to be proactive or offer meaningful feedback.
• : “Focuses on ensuring the safety and security of the individual and group through status enhancement and face-saving.” For instance, leaders from more self-protective cultures may be less likely to give credit or recognize others for their contributions or take responsibility for their own mistakes and are more likely to prefer protecting themselves over the interest of the group. Misalignment may lead to frustration, mistrust, friction and reduced contributions or retention. 
• : Preference towards the “known and safe” and away from risk-taking, viewing ambiguous or unfamiliar situations as threatening, while preferring structure, clear rules and predictability. Misalignment can lead to reduced performance, either due to confusion from a lack of structure or, conversely, from unexpected behaviors like breaking rules, taking excessive risks or challenging norms in ways that feel inappropriate to others.
• Individualism vs. collectivism: The extent of interdependence of individuals within a society. In individualistic cultures, people tend to define their self-image through themselves, while in collectivist cultures, their self-definition is through being part of a collective. In individualistic cultures, people are expected to care for themselves and their immediate family only. In contrast, collectivist cultures emphasize strong in-group ties, where individuals are looked after in return for loyalty. Misalignments can result in challenges such as reduced collaboration or over-reliance on others, differing expectations around responsibility, innovation and recognition.
• Motivation towards achievement and success: Cultures high on this dimension generally value competition, achievement and success, where success is defined by outperforming others or being the best. In contrast, cultures on the other end of this scale tend towards consensus orientation and prioritize care for others and overall quality of life and finding joy and meaning in one’s work. In such cultures, success is measured by well-being, and standing out is not necessarily seen as desirable.
• Indulgence vs. restraint: Reflects how individuals manage or do not manage their desires and impulses. Misalignment may lead to misunderstood behaviors, unmet expectations and friction.
• : Positive cognitive bias refers to the tendency to process certain types of information more favorably or optimistically, rather than neutrally or negatively. For instance, in social situations, someone with a positive cognitive bias is more likely to perceive interactions positively, while someone with a negative bias may focus on adverse outcomes or interpret the same scenario more negatively. Research suggests that East Asian cultures generally exhibit a stronger inclination toward positive cognitive bias compared to Western cultures. However, such biases are not fixed; they often shift and adapt based on the cultural norms of a migrant’s host country. Misalignment can lead to discrepancies in how situations, behaviors or risks are perceived and how they evolve into assumptions or conclusions.
• : Cultures significantly differ on the level of trust people place in strangers or in workplace peers with whom they are not close friends. Beyond affecting how long it may take for different individuals to form trust, misalignment between individuals with different levels may cause wrong expectations and frustration or disappointment. Not only that starting-point trust level may be different, but also how additional trust is built:
• : Task-based trust arises from professional interactions and is built on individuals’ performance, competence and accomplishments. In contrast, relationship-based trust develops through personal interactions and familiarity between parties. Misalignment can lead to reduced interpersonal trust and collaboration.
• Low vs. high context communication: Low-context communication is typically explicit, detailed, straightforward and direct. In contrast, high-context communication relies heavily on non-verbal cues, shared understanding and implicit meaning. Misalignment can lead to broken communication and misunderstandings between individuals.
• Direct vs. indirect negative feedback giving: Direct negative feedback is typically more blunt and straightforward, while indirect negative feedback tends to be more softened, subtle and tactful, often delivered alongside or wrapped in positive remarks. Misalignment can lead to perceptions of feedback being rude or offensive, while others may fail to receive the intended critical message.
• Confrontational vs. confrontation avoidance: Confrontational cultures encourage open expression and debates, even when it involves conflict or disagreement. In this context, confrontation is seen as a constructive and positive tool. In contrast, a confrontation-avoiding approach promotes avoiding conflict, viewing confrontation as negative and disruptive to harmony and relationships. Misalignment can lead to perceptions of rudeness, disrespect or offense, on the one hand, or avoidance of the resolution of disagreements, on the other hand.
• Linear vs. flexible time approach: Linear time cultures tend to be more punctual with schedules and sequential in how projects are approached, one task after the other. Meeting agreed milestones or deadlines is prioritized over flexibility. In flexible-time cultures, schedules are perceived more fluidly, interruptions and parallelization are common and flexibility and adaptability are valued over organization. Misalignment can result in unexpected and unacceptable derailment from the expected timeline, increased pressure, reduced productivity and frustration among teams or customers.
• Long-term vs. short-term orientation: Cultures with a long-term orientation prioritize future returns, growth and sustainability while saving, investing and exercising patience, often willing to forgo short-term gains. In contrast, short-term-oriented cultures tend to value quick results. Misalignment can lead to poor planning or unmet performance or goal expectations.
• : There are notable variations across different countries in ethical codes. For example, ethical codes in India and China often emphasize collective responsibility, social harmony and community well-being, whereas those in the U.S. tend to focus more on personal integrity, individual responsibility and accountability.
• : How emotions are openly expressed and interact with reason in relationships. Affective cultures encourage open emotional expression, viewing it as a sign of sincerity, engagement and a basis for trust. Neutral cultures, on the other hand, emphasize emotional restraint. People are more reserved, seeing self-control and reason as essential in interactions. Misalignment may lead to broken communication, such as perception of being misunderstood, attacked or ignored.
• : Tight cultures are defined by strict social norms and low tolerance for behaviors that deviate from them. The main difference between the two lies in the strength of the social norms and the level of tolerance for deviation. Misalignment may lead to behavior that is perceived as out of line, disrespectful or rule-breaking, or alternatively, as excessively strict and inflexible or unsociable.
• : Survival values prioritize economic and physical security, often accompanied by a more ethnocentric perspective and lower levels of trust and tolerance. In contrast, self-expression values emphasize environmental protection, increasing acceptance of foreigners, LGBTQ+ individuals and gender equality, along with a stronger desire for involvement in economic and political decision-making.

(Sources: ,,,Prof. Erin Meyer’s The Culture Map and ,Prof. Geert Hofstede’s work on cultural dimensions, , ,,,).

The following table shows where selected countries are placed on some of the dimensions described above. A dynamically sortable table that includes additional aspects can be found . Color codes were used to differentiate between the higher-end and lower-end, or otherwise two distinct types of value groups, roughly equally on each dimension. It is important to keep in mind that:

1. Individuals within cultures may strongly differ in their values and norms, and also in how quickly they adapt to a new host culture.
2. These dimensions refer to national culture, rather than to race or ethnicity. For example, that means that the table could hint towards the norms of a recent migrant according to their origin country, but does not imply that a person born and raised in country X who is a descendant of migrants from country Y would have their parents’ origin culture norms.

* A much wider and dynamically sortable table comparing these and additional aspects can be found .

Other individual factors

• Generational belonging: Baby Boomers typically value hierarchical authority more so than Gen X, Y and Z, gradually shifting to high preferences for egalitarianism in Gen Z. Gen X expects more involvement in decision-making than Baby Boomers, followed by Gen Z, and most by Gen Y (Millennials), who expect participative leadership. Baby boomers and Generation X prioritize clarity, structure and order, while Generation Y and Generation Z emphasize money, career and stimulation. Generation Z, Millennials and Baby Boomers emphasize development and social relations significantly more than Generation X (, and clear instructions, etc.
• Perceived job and financial security: These can affect an individual’s perceived risk (), which in turn may shape their tolerance for actions they estimate as risky, such as, perhaps, speaking up to higher-level leaders, questioning or challenging decisions or engaging in debates. Additionally, gender has been shown to influence perceptions of job security ().

Organizational, industrial and environmental factors

• Ethnic workplace diversity and in individuals’ neighbourhoods: People living in highly diverse communities often exhibit lower baseline trust levels (). At work, building emotional bonds or trust across ethnic lines can be particularly difficult (). These are especially relevant for the IT industry, as many of its hubs, such as in NYC, Silicon Valley or Seattle, are highly ethnically diverse both at work and in employees’ communities. Difficulty in forming trust may translate to poorer collaboration, organizational climate, performance and retention.
• Organization size matters: Employees working in larger organizations with more hierarchical layers separating them from top management tend to exhibit weaker emotional commitment and sense of obligation toward supporting change. Bi-directional top management communication that is perceived as effective can help mitigate that (). In smaller organizations, informal engagement naturally flattens hierarchies.
• First-tier IT managers’ lack of leadership skills: First-level IT managers, especially men, seem to be promoted into their managerial roles mostly based on technical skills, while they are lacking organizational or people leadership skills compared to their counterparts in other realms, yet organizational and people leadership skills are often more essential than technical skills in such roles (; ; ; ).
• Of course, all the aspects mentioned earlier, under the “Individual national cultural background” section, can apply more widely than as individual background contexts, as societal or environmental factors, when conducting business multi-nationally.

By recognizing that perception and behavior do not occur in a vacuum but are refracted through lenses of culture, generation, geography, organizational norms or other contexts, leaders can monitor, intervene, prevent and resolve pitfalls that are lurking everywhere. In doing so, they not only support their teams’ and organization’s productivity and performance, but they promote a more successful inclusivity and diversity, with likely happier employees.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?