Cross Cultural Networking

In the West, trust often begins with capability: “Show me what you can do, and I’ll believe in you.” But in Japan, it starts with character: “Let me understand who you are, then I’ll trust what you do.” At monoya, we’ve felt this difference deeply. When we first started engaging with Japanese partners, we expected our portfolio and success stories to do the talking. They didn’t. Meetings were polite but reserved. Decisions moved slowly. Then we shifted gears—less pitching, more listening. We invested in relationships. We showed up consistently. We respected silence and patience. Over time, trust started to build—not because we talked about our work, but because we shared our values. One moment that stands out: a partner told us, “What mattered wasn’t your proposal—it was how you carried yourself.” That stuck with us. In Japan, trust isn’t built in the boardroom—it’s built in the in-between moments: over dinner, during shared silences, through consistent follow-ups. It’s relational, not transactional. For global teams entering Japan, remember: trust here is earned slowly, but it’s rock-solid once it’s there. Have you experienced this cultural shift in trust-building? I’d love to hear your thoughts. #Trust #JapanBusiness #CulturalInsights #monoya #CrossCulturalLeadership

Conservation’s hardest problem isn’t nature—it’s people In a world of quick wins and impatient headlines, Martin Goebel is playing the long game. Now Director for Mexico at LegacyWorks Group, Goebel has spent 5 decades navigating the terrain where conservation meets community, politics, and development. Most of that time has been in Mexico, where he has helped shape some of the country’s most ambitious environmental efforts. The challenges are familiar: water scarcity, habitat loss, mismanaged tourism, frayed social trust. But Goebel and his collaborators are betting on a different kind of conservation—one that starts not with maps or mandates, but with conversations. His current focus is the Pacific coast of Baja California Sur—one of North America’s most stunning and biologically rich regions, but also one of the fastest growing. Towns like La Paz and Todos Santos are morphing into tourism and retirement enclaves. With that growth come pressures: overdrawn aquifers, degraded ecosystems, rising inequality. For Goebel, the path forward lies in trust-based relationships with local communities—not top-down decrees. LegacyWorks isn’t a typical conservation group. Founded to support watershed restoration in Wyoming, it now works across 5 regions in the U.S. & Mexico, blending environmental protection, rural development, and “community readiness.” In Baja, its flagship effort is ResiMar—short for Regeneración Sierra a Mar, or “regeneration from mountains to sea.” Through an alliance of local partners, ResiMar aims to restore watersheds, strengthen food systems, and align ecological goals with community aspirations. The idea is simple but rarely practiced with this degree of social patience: take care of the uplands, and the benefits will flow downstream. Such projects are rarely linear. Goebel uses a four-part framework that starts with convening & listening. Only once trust is built does the work shift to funding, metrics, and outcomes. One initiative took five years just to secure federal approval for a community-proposed fisheries refuge. To Goebel, that’s the real pace of durable change. He knows the pitfalls of rushed efforts. In the 1990s, he helped create the Upper Gulf of California Biosphere Reserve to protect the vaquita porpoise. But the process alienated local fishers. The backlash lingers. That experience taught him a lasting lesson: social legitimacy is not optional. “Environmental challenges are not as hard as the social ones,” Goebel says. The hardest work is about trust, governance, and competing visions. That’s why LegacyWorks emphasizes humility—what Goebel calls “underpromising and overdelivering.” In a sector driven by bold ambitions, that mindset is rare. Still, he’s hopeful. A new generation of local leaders, many of them women, see conservation not as an imposition but a path to self-determination. They’re not waiting for perfection. They’re building something that, over time, may last. 📰 https://mongabay.cc/1BfqiQ

Something keeps happening in senior leadership teams across Singapore, Malaysia, and Brunei. A capable, well-intentioned leader, often from Europe or North America, finds that their team won't push back and won't surface problems early. The leader reads this as disengagement or a capability gap. They redesign the structure, run a culture survey, bring in a consultant. The symptoms ease. The dynamic doesn't change. The problem isn't the team. It's also not a culture problem in the way that phrase is usually used. It's a misread. A leader interpreting a system they don't fully have the coordinates for, and fixing the wrong thing as a result. I've been working across this for most of my career. Last week, I took two assessments — partly out of curiosity, and to pressure-test my own assumptions — introduced to me by Belinda Widgery, an Associated Practitioner with The Culture Factor Group, who also debriefed me on the results. Clarifying. And a little uncomfortable. The Cultural Adaptability Profile looks at individual capability. My scores came back strong across all five dimensions. Cultural Interest at 100, benchmarked against seasoned expatriates. The Culture Compass looks at something else: the gap between your operating defaults and the cultural logic of the environment you're working in. My Power Distance score: 19. Singapore’s: 74. Malaysia’s: 100. The reports describe 10 points as the threshold for noticeable daily impact. High adaptability doesn't close a 55-80 point gap. It means you don't get destabilised by it. The misreads still happen, and they accumulate. People don't contradict you publicly. Disagreement shows up later, informally. Deference looks like agreement until something goes wrong. Without the right coordinates, you may continue to diagnose it as a people problem and address the wrong issues. The same pattern appeared across all three countries I mapped against. On emotional expressiveness, something I've used to build trust, the feedback was consistent. In high power-distance and uncertainty-avoidance environments, what I experience as openness can register as a loss of control. The behaviours I use to build trust can quietly undermine my authority at the same time. Whose assumptions are in the room, how far they sit from the system they're working in, and whether the people trying to fix the problem are reading it accurately — that sits underneath everything else. The leader whose team won't push back doesn't need another restructure. Silence in a meeting isn't agreement. It's deference. Disagreement moves later, through someone trusted enough to carry it upward. If the organisation isn't set up to surface dissent safely, that loop never closes. The assessments from The Culture Factor didn't tell me what I expected. That was exactly the point. GROW HR Consulting works with organisations across APAC and EMEA on HR leadership, people diagnostics, and executive coaching. www.growhr.asia | alf.carlesater@growhr.asia

𝗜𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗔𝗜 𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻? 👇 This maps from Erin Meyer says more than it seems. It shows how leadership styles differ across cultures — from top-down to consensual, from egalitarian to hierarchical. Now overlay this with how different countries and organizations are embracing AI. Some patterns start to emerge. 💡 A few hypotheses worth exploring: 🔹 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵-𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 cultures (like Japan, China, India) — often overlooked in the West for “lack of clarity” or “executive presence” — might now have an edge in prompting, where nuance, connection, and context matter. 🔹 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝘀-𝗱𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 cultures (Nordics, Netherlands) — great for building trust and inclusive experimentation — may struggle with the speed and decisiveness AI rollouts often require. 🔹 𝗛𝗶𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 cultures — can scale AI faster at first. But without cultural buy-in and grassroots learning, AI literacy may remain surface-level. 🔹 𝗔𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗼-𝗦𝗮𝘅𝗼𝗻 cultures — comfortable with flat structures and fast decision-making — may adopt tools quickly, but risk missing the deeper mindset shift AI demands. So the question is no longer just how to adopt AI — but how to align it with the cultural engine of your organization. 👉 And more than that: how can we be intentional in leveraging cultural differences — not flattening them, not ignoring them — but using them as an advantage? What do you see when you look at this map? Where does your culture help — or hold you back — in using AI well? 🔄 𝗙𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 — 𝗜’𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀. #AI #CultureAndAI #Leadership #GlobalTeams #FutureOfWork Dave Ulrich Caroline Salen Terence Mauri Britt Ploug Laurent Aufils Hack Future Lab Robert von Klot-Heydenfeldt Özer Güzel Falguni Shah Andrew Nowak

Approval travels on paper, not during the meeting.   In Japan, decisions often take shape outside the meeting room. They move thoughtfully through a process called ringi (稟議). At its core, ringi means proposals circulate through the organization, gathering input and approval along the way. Far from being just paperwork, it’s a system of alignment. By the time a proposal reaches the meeting, everyone is already on the same page. Coming from a background where debates and decisions were made in the meeting itself, I expected lengthy discussions and back-and-forth. Instead, the meeting was calm, focused, and conclusive. The questions had already been addressed during the circulation process, and the final conversation was about confirmation and shared ownership. What seemed unusual at first quickly revealed itself as a strength; decisions carried the weight of collective support. Learning this reshaped how I collaborate with Japanese organizations. Instead of pushing for immediate answers, I invest time upfront sharing drafts, having one-on-one conversations, and listening carefully to concerns. The process builds trust, encourages thoughtful feedback, and ensures that when decisions are made, they are implemented effectively. The outcome is not just approvals, but stronger, more resilient relationships. The lesson? Some systems value patience over speed, and that patience pays off. By respecting the process, we not only move projects forward but also build the trust that makes future collaboration smoother and more rewarding. What’s the most unusual approval process you’ve experienced? #CrossCulturalLeadership #JapaneseBusiness #DecisionMaking #TrustBuilding #GlobalBusiness

Same role. Same industry. But Hiring in Europe vs. the U.S.? A Completely Different Game. I’ve had the same conversation more times than I can count: “Lauren, we hired for this same role in New York—why is it taking so long in Amsterdam?” or “We found amazing talent in Paris, but they’re hesitant to make the jump. What gives?” 👋 Hi, I’m Lauren. I’ve spent the last 12+ years recruiting executive leaders across the U.S. and Europe in FMCG and consumer goods. Let me tell you a secret: You can’t use one hiring playbook across both markets. It will backfire. Here’s what I’ve learned from being on the ground (literally—in boardrooms in Barcelona, Paris, Manhattan, and Amsterdam): In the U.S. 🕒 Speed = Seriousness. A company that moves fast is seen as decisive and attractive. You can reach out on a Tuesday, meet them Thursday, and have a signed offer by Monday. (And yes, that’s happened to me.) Candidates are direct. “What’s the comp? What’s the growth path? When do we start?” Changing jobs is normal, even every 2–3 years. Risk is part of the game. In Europe: ⏳ Relationship > Reaction Time. Trust takes time. Most execs want multiple rounds, thoughtful pacing, and to really know the company before signing anything. Candidates ask about team values, long-term alignment, and purpose—before they talk about salary. Job changes are intentional. Many view each move as a 5+ year commitment. I’ve seen companies miss out on amazing talent simply because they didn’t adapt their approach to fit the cultural norms. The truth is… hiring across regions requires EQ, not just IQ. It’s not about lowering standards—it’s about meeting people where they are. And that’s where my team and I come in. We don’t just recruit across borders—we translate expectations. We coach clients on how to court top talent, not just source it. Because when you understand how different markets think about hiring, you stop pushing—and start attracting. Leading global searches isn’t about speaking multiple languages. It’s about thinking in multiple cultures. Let’s chat if you’re hiring across the Atlantic—and want a partner who’s been in both rooms. #ExecutiveSearch #GlobalHiring #LeadershipRecruitment #FMCG #CPG #TalentStrategy

Dutch directness vs. Brazilian warmth. Most people frame this as a personality clash. It's not. It's a structural difference in how trust is built and Hofstede's data explains exactly why. Brazil scores 38/100 on Individualism , more collectivist, relationship-first. The Netherlands scores 80/100, one of the most individualist countries in the world. In practice, this means: Brazil: Trust is built before business. Coffee first. Relationship first. Then transaction. Netherlands: Trust is built through the transaction itself. Deliver. Be reliable. Be direct. Trust follows performance. When these two models collide in a meeting, a negotiation, or a performance review, things break down fast. The Brazilian reads Dutch directness as coldness or aggression. The Dutch reads Brazilian relationship-building as inefficiency or avoidance. Both are reading their own cultural script on the other person's behavior. I work with both sides of this equation, professionals navigating Dutch workplaces and companies managing Brazilian-Dutch teams. The organizations that invest in naming this difference don't just reduce friction. They turn it into a strategic advantage: Brazilian professionals who can bridge both cultures are among the most valuable talent in international teams. Have you experienced this dynamic? What did you do with it?

Your tech solutions might be universal, but business cultures rarely are. For founders expanding globally, understanding cultural nuances can make a world of difference. I've seen so many brilliant construction tech solutions face unexpected challenges internationally not because of product issues, but because of cultural cues that were hiding in plain sight. What works smoothly in your home market frequently encounters unexpected barriers abroad. In our latest Practical Nerds episode, Shubhankar and I explored three cultural patterns we've observed that often create unexpected challenges for founders expanding internationally: 1/ Trust deficit can kill deals in Asia before you realize what happened. Asian markets require relationships BEFORE transactions. That mid-deal silence? It's not disinterest—it's a fundamental lack of trust. When things stall, don't send another "just checking in" email. Request a direct call: "Hey, can we get on a call? I'd just like to hear from you." 2/ Europeans want facts, not hype. Your high-energy American pitch style? It can be "overcompensating" to Europeans. They're engineering-minded—lead with observations, not judgments. And remember: Europeans minimize downside before maximizing upside. Frame your solution as risk mitigation first, opportunity second. 3/ Middle East surprisingly loves American tech but demands in-person presence. Virtual meetings barely register as "meetings" at all. And forget the org chart—decisions flow through specific gatekeepers who might not even appear in formal hierarchies. What seems to work well for many companies in global expansion? Maintaining consistent products and channels while building localized teams who can navigate the nuances of each market's business culture. 👇 Dive deeper into our full analysis of global construction tech expansion below. #ConstructionTech #GlobalExpansion #BusinessCulture

It turns out that when you ask ChatGPT about values (things like trust, authority, fairness, etc.), it answers like someone from Finland, not Jordan. Or from the Netherlands, but not Ghana. I came across this nugget in the research paper below on cultural bias and LLM alignment. It's from September 2024 (ancient history in AI time), but many of the threads it pulls on are still present in the most recent model updates. The authors tested GPT-4o, 4-turbo, 4, 3.5-turbo, and 3 against survey data from 107 countries and found that all models exhibited cultural values similar to those of English-speaking and Protestant European countries. This matters because when millions of people use AI to write emails or make decisions, they're getting cultural filters that may not match how they actually think or build trust. These AI-generated responses influence communication, but also the level of interpersonal trust between communicators. And small cognitive biases accumulate and shape systems over time. The fix? Researchers found you can reduce bias by being explicit about cultural context in prompts. That's a good start, but we need systems designed from the beginning around different cultural values, not ones that just tolerate them. Culture shapes how people think, communicate, and work. If the tools we're building don't account for that, we're just scaling someone else's worldview. Link to research in comments. #AIBias #CulturalDiversityInAI #ResponsibleAI

5 Ways to Turn US-India Culture Differences Into Collaboration Wins (With Real-World How-To’s) 1. Invest in Cultural Fluency—Not Just Sensitivity What to do: Host “culture exchange” sessions. Invite both teams to share how and why they work the way they do. Example: One company held monthly “Ask Me Anything” calls. India teams asked about the US’s drive for speed. US teams learned why Indian teams seek senior buy-in. Result: Less frustration, more alignment. 2. Blend Directness With Context What to do: Start meetings with clear, direct goals (US style), then invite scenario-based or clarifying questions (India style). Example: In a product launch, the US PM set the objectives, then the India lead explored the “what-ifs.” This led to both faster starts and better coverage of risks. 3. Rotate Meeting Leadership What to do: Don’t let the same side run every meeting. Switch between US and India leads. Example: For weekly standups, the India manager led one week and surfaced local blockers; the US PM led the next, driving focus on customer results. Both perspectives became visible, and engagement soared. 4. Build Feedback Loops That Actually Work What to do: Teach both sides to give feedback in each other’s style—direct, but always constructive. Make feedback a routine, not a surprise. Example: Teams closed every sprint with a “Start/Stop/Continue” check-in. The US team practiced softening feedback; India team practiced being more candid. Trust and psychological safety improved quickly. 5. Celebrate Shared Wins—And Shared Learnings What to do: Shine a spotlight on successes that happened because of your differences. Example: When India’s process rigor averted a risk, it was celebrated in a global town hall. When the US team’s “just try it” mindset led to a breakthrough, that was spotlighted too. Both became team best practices. The best India-US teams don’t just “manage around” culture—they make it their competitive advantage. The next time you hit a bump, ask: are we fighting our differences, or using them to win? What’s one India-US “culture hack” that’s worked for you? Share below—let’s build the new playbook together. Zinnov Amita Goyal Amaresh N. Ashveen Pai Dipanwita Ghosh Mohammed Faraz Khan ieswariya k Komal Shah Hani Mukhey Karthik Padmanabhan Kavita Chakravarthy Rohit Nair Saurabh Mehta Nairuti Sanghavi