Simple words we take for granted do not easily translate across cultures. As Fiona Citkin rightfully points out there is a language-culture ceiling for women. There are ways to break through the ceiling but it starts with organisational awareness and uncovering unconscious bias. Too often organisations focus on mitigating “visual” bias but subtle differences in word choices and definitions carry more obstacles for women. Starting with the basic element of language, words across cultures create confusion. While having an awareness of multiculturalism helps, organisations would be better served learning how to embrace culturally linguistic differences.
Looking across the multiple cultures in Asia reinforces Citkin’s view. Examining a few simple words explains why. Oddly enough, it is simple words used every day at work causing the most disruption. Three words responsible for de-railing many careers are ‘leadership presence’, ‘failure’ and ‘ambition.’
Looking at this word, leadership presence, what exactly does this mean? Typically the visual and vocal stand out. At talent meetings, I often hear, “I’m not certain Ms. Chan is right for the role….she doesn’t have leadership presence.” Yet defining presence in granular terms becomes murky. When asked to describe presence the response is usually, “I don’t know how to explain, it’s a feeling or I don’t know but I know when “presence” walks in the door or, “charisma”. All of these responses are culturally laden and highly subjective. After the 2008 financial crisis the dark side of charismatic leadership became apparent. Not many want to hold onto that label today. Charisma and ‘’feelings of presence’’ are displayed differently across cultures. A charismatic leader in Tokyo is vastly different than charismatic leaders in Bombay, Buenos Aires, London or New York. Besides presence, the definition of leadership is more puzzling. James McGregor Burns stated “leadership is the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth.” Researching leadership across cultures, added to the complexity; most models are skewed western and male. Using this framework leaves little room to accept diverse perspectives and style differences.
The other challenge is the word, ambition. According to Marie Wilson author of Closing the Leadership Gap, ambition is expected in men but can be isolating for women. Sheryl Sandberg, on the other hand, believes women should “lean in” and start talking about ambition. Both make good points but ambition carries vastly different connotations across the multiple cultures in Asia Pacific. The word “ambition” is a troublesome one in Asia. In China, women are more likely to discuss their ambitious career goals. To ask “Are you ambitious” in Vietnam, or Korea, or Bangladesh, usually results in a negative shrug. Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore lean towards the word, “contribution” rather than ambition. This is not to say that women are unambitious, far from it. But it is to say that the ambition (and other words) simply doesn’t fit as neatly across cultures. Speaking about one’s ambitions is often aligned with individualistic cultures in North America, Asian cultures resonate with collectivism.
I would argue being seen as “ambitious” still connotes a pejorative profile for women. Here’s the reason. I was asked to coach an accomplished business strategist being considered for partnership with a prestigious global consulting firm. Ms Lee, a Hong Kong Chinese, graduated from Oxford was fluent in French, English and multiple Chinese dialects, and an incredible track record of success. She was a direct communicator, quick wit and solid performer. The problem – according to the partners – she’s too ambitious and her communication style was viewed by other partners (not clients) as too candid. Interestingly enough, these were the qualities looked for in recruiting Ms Lee. None of the ‘’so-called’’ ambitiousness or aggressive style became apparent during the six month coaching engagement. Sadly, this label stuck and stymied her promotion. That said, global organisations may not be ready for women to lean in – too much.
The other word challenge is “failure.” Some recruiters will ask, “tell me about a time when you failed…” The word failure can stall the interview discussion or result in elongated silence or blank expressions. When this happens, most interviewers will ask the question again from a different angle, but the same responses will be returned.
Silence is uncomfortable for most people, particularly in an interview. So what happens? Similar to Citkin’s article this silence impacts assumptions on intelligence and potential. Armed with cross cultural knowledge or not, most organisations underestimate the cultural significance of the words. Words clash and collide across cultures and produce dramatically different emotions across cultures.
Instead of cross cultural training, organisations should focus on uncovering unconscious bias in recruitment and selection process. Bias, as the term implies, is unconscious. That is, we don’t know what we don’t know or we would know.
Rather than developing more programs, organisations should audit well-intended employee life-cycle processes; performance reviews, hi-potential talent programs, and leadership selection to uncover who’s missing. Stretching Sanderg’s message, it is the organisation that needs to collectively lean in to ensure greater equality and economic growth.
Fiona Cikin is absolutely correct in saying, out with intolerances and I would strongly advise, bring on inclusion.
