Cross Cultural Networking

Rice, Roti, and the Invisible Architecture of Family Life (How everyday food formats may quietly shape who sits, who waits, and who belongs ) some of the most revealing socio-cultural insights don’t come from explicit beliefs or stated values, but from the quiet mechanics of everyday life. Take something as mundane as rice versus wheat. When you overlay maps of rice-eating regions with other social indicators, it opens up an interesting hypothesis space — not causal, not deterministic, but deeply suggestive. Rice, by its nature, is cooked in one go. It allows meals to be timed, shared, and eaten together. The family gathers, sits at the same table, and participates in the act of eating simultaneously. Wheat, especially in the form of rotis, operates very differently. Rotis need to be made fresh and served hot, which almost always requires someone to stay back in the kitchen while others begin their meal. In most households, that role has historically fallen to women. Over time, this creates a subtle but persistent segregation — kitchen versus dining space, service versus consumption, waiting versus eating. None of this is imposed as ideology; it emerges as routine. The hypothesis is not that wheat causes patriarchy or rice creates equality, but that food formats can quietly reinforce existing social structures by shaping who sits where, who waits, and who eats together. These micro-behaviours, repeated daily over generations, may end up encoding power, gender roles, and participation far more effectively than any spoken rule ever could. Thoughts ??

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

A month ago I was with IMD #EMBAs in Japan on program about resilience, where conversations about #population_decline seem to be everywhere. The country's fertility rate has plummeted to just 1.15 (2024) children per woman, one of the lowest in the world. It’s been declining since the 1970s. But here's what's fascinating: #fertility rates had decreased in Japan much more than Sweden for the same period. Why? New research (May 2025) by Nobel laureate economist Claudia Goldin reveals something counterintuitive: the #speed of #economic_development matters more than the level of #wealth. Japan experienced explosive economic growth from the 1960-80s. Per capita income quadrupled in just two decades. But here's the catch, #social_norms couldn't keep pace with economic reality. The result? A #generational and #gender_conflict: • Women gained education and career opportunities rapidly • Men largely maintained traditional expectations about household roles • Today, Japanese women do 3+ hours more unpaid household work daily than men • In contrast, Swedish women do less than 1 hour more than men This isn't just about childcare policies or economic incentives. It's also about what happens in #private, when societies transform faster than cultural norms can adapt. Countries that developed more gradually (like those in Northern Europe) gave men and women time to #renegotiate #household_responsibilities. The result? Higher fertility rates even with high female employment. The lesson is clear: #economic_transformation without #social_transformation creates demographic challenges that are incredibly hard to reverse. These findings are especially meaningful in the #current_context when gender equity becomes a political fault line, workplace norms continue to reward availability over care, and traditional gender roles make a come back. Walking through Tokyo's quiet neighborhoods, you can feel this tension a modern economy built on traditional family structures that no longer work for the #families (and #women) themselves. Goldin reframes the #fertility_crisis as a #macroeconomic and #cultural challenge. It’s not about persuading women to have more babies, it’s about redesigning the world so they can. Worth reading the full paper in comments #Demographics #Japan #GenderEquality #EconomicDevelopment #SocialChange

“Women leave their jobs to focus on family, what can you do?” “Women are a bad mentoring investment because they’re ticking time bombs of maternity”   My #athenarising and #goodguys coauthor, David Smith, and I have heard it all. Too often, leaders, especially male leaders, assume women leave their company or academic department for purely domestic reasons. Yet, over and over again, the research tells a different story.   This massive study of 245,270 tenure-track and tenured professors in the United States by Dr. Katie Spoon and colleagues, confirms that women leave academia at higher rates than men at every career age. But careful analysis of the #reasons women leave is enlightening:   Women are more likely than men to feel pushed from their jobs and less likely to feel pulled toward better opportunities, and women leave because of workplace climate more often than work-life balance. --Women’s odds of feeling pushed out were 44% higher than men's, and women’s odds of feeling pulled in to better opportunities were 39% lower than men's. --Both men and women who left academia report work-life balance reasons at statistically indistinguishable rates. -- The dominant reason women leave their academic jobs is workplace climate, including dysfunctional leadership, feelings of not belonging to the department or university, harassment, and discrimination.   New Year's Message to leaders—especially male leaders: ✅ Stop assuming that work-life conflict is the primary reason for the attrition of women. ✅ Conduct annual surveys to better understand the role toxic cultural elements play in the lived experience of women in your organization. ✅ Conduct confidential listening sessions with samples of female employees at all levels to better understand their concerns and experiences. ✅ Prepare leaders for better allyship for gender equity and belonging. ✅ Practice clarity, transparency, and accountability in your messaging about why all of the above matter. #genderequality #genderdiversity #womenleaders #genderequity #womeninengineering #21stcenturyleadership #inclusiveleadership

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

🌍 Too Direct or Too Diplomatic? When Global Teams Talk Past Each Other If you lead a global team, these moments probably feel familiar: 📌 A message meant to be efficient lands as harsh. 📌 Silence is mistaken for disengagement. 📌 What you see as professionalism, someone else experiences as disrespect. This isn’t about personality. It’s about cultural differences in communication—specifically, low-context vs. high-context communication styles. 🚩 In low-context cultures (like the U.S. or the Netherlands), clarity and directness are valued. 🚩 In high-context cultures (like Japan or parts of the Middle East), meaning is often conveyed through tone, relationships, and what’s not said. Decades of cross-cultural research confirm this isn’t preference—it’s culture. 😣 The Impact Leaders Feel Every Day Global team leaders feel the strain when: ❇️ Cross-cultural miscommunication slows projects. ❇️ Feedback is misinterpreted, causing withdrawal instead of improvement. ❇️ Psychological safety erodes across regions. ❇️ Leaders worry about saying the “wrong” thing—and start avoiding hard conversations. Research from Harvard Business School has shown that psychological safety is critical for team performance. When communication norms clash, safety is often the first thing lost. 🧭 What Culturally Competent Leaders Do Differently Leaders who are mastering cultural differences don’t try to “fix” people—they adjust systems and behaviors. Here’s what works: ✅ Make communication norms explicit Don’t assume professionalism looks the same everywhere. Discuss feedback and meeting preferences openly. ✅ Adapt feedback style without losing clarity Direct doesn’t have to mean blunt. Context and relationship matter. ✅ Respect silence In many cultures, silence signals reflection or respect—not disengagement. ✅ Build psychological safety intentionally Model curiosity, invite multiple ways to contribute, and reward respectful challenge. ✅ Lead with cultural humility Research shows leaders who acknowledge learning curves build more trust than those who aim for perfection. 🚀 The Results When leaders build cultural competence: 🌟 Trust increases across borders 🌟 Collaboration improves 🌟 Conflict decreases 🌟 Innovation rises 🌟 Deadlines are met with fewer setbacks 📌📌📌 Global teams don’t fail because of diversity. They struggle when leaders aren’t equipped to lead across it. 🌍Ready to go deeper? If this message resonates, it may be time for a Cultural Clarity Call — a brief, no-pressure conversation to identify where cultural misunderstandings might be hindering your team's progress. 📍You’ll find the link right on my banner. #MasteringCulturalDifferences #CulturalDifferences #CulturalCompetence #InclusiveLeadership #GlobalTeams #PsychologicalSafety 

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