Chapter 9 Cross-Cultural Facilitation

Chapter by Catherine Mercer Bing

Do unto others as THEY would have you do unto THEM.

~ Author Unknown

With globalization, employees around the world are interacting more often with each other, both virtually and in face-to-face work sessions. Even in companies that are not global, multiculturalism in the workplace is a business imperative that must be understood and managed effectively. All four aspects of the Mahal Facilitation Framework: Strategies and Solutions, Programs and Process, Learning and Development, and Cooperation and Collaboration are impacted by cross cultural considerations. They all require communication and since learning is pervasive in these areas, this chapter focuses on the foundations of design and delivery of materials, specifically taking into account the aspects of culture that impact learning and effective communication.

The “Golden Rule” often quoted as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” is all about how you want to be treated. In the cross cultural world, we need to treat people the way they want to be treated. The definition of “respectful” for a person in one culture may in fact be disrespectful to someone from another culture. This could include shaking hands (men and women do not shake hands in certain cultures) or it might be making direct eye contact (in other cultures this is extremely rude), and so forth. The quotation at the beginning of this chapter: “Do unto others as THEY would have you do unto THEM,” sets the tone of this chapter.

The concepts and principles introduced in this chapter focus on all aspects of learning, program design, and development—they apply equally to facilitation of workshops. The chapter also will include some activities to use when developing trainers and facilitators who work in multi-cultural settings. Let’s start with an example of why culture is an important topic to include in this publication.

Example of Cultural Blunders in Learning Facilitation

Zoe McWinters has been asked by Rhonda McCarthy to teach a half-day class in Project Management. She appreciates being recognized for her expertise and works very hard to create a half-day program with a PowerPoint presentation on the topic and some participant exercise materials as handouts.

Zoe is opening her program with a little exercise that helps participants get to know each other. She has a mixed cultural class. She introduces the program with what she calls an “icebreaker” by asking each individual to introduce himself/herself and tell the class their most important achievement.

When it gets to Zeng Ding’s turn, he simply says his name and that his achievement is that he was selected to attend the class. He then looks at the floor. Zoe encourages him to tell more about his experiences and achievements by saying, “Zeng, I am sure you accomplished some achievements that are more important than attending this class, please tell us about just one thing so we all can get to know you better.” He continues to look at the floor and the silence becomes uncomfortable. She waits until the silence gets unbearable, shrugs her shoulders then calls on the next person in the class. About a third of the remaining participants choose to say that their greatest accomplishment is being in the class.

For the next exercise, Zoe asks questions specific to the pre-work and gets about three or four people (out of fifteen) who are eager to share their answers. After calling on those participants a couple of times each, she comments, “I am sure some of the rest of you know these answers too. Don’t be shy. Mariza, do you know the answer to my question?” Mariza does not answer, so Zoe calls on one of three participants who seem to know all the answers.

Early in the program Zoe is asked by one of the participants what PMBOK® (Project Management Body of Knowledge) stands for. She praises the participant who asks and says, “There are a lot of acronyms in this business. If I use any you do not know, please ask me to clarify them.” She gets no other questions about acronyms during the session.

At the break and within earshot of some of the participants, she complains bitterly to a male colleague that the class is not very responsive. She suggests that maybe it is because they are not from the US but from various cultures that they are just not prepared for the content. She is anxious that she is falling behind in covering the materials and now will have to speed up the program delivery.

After the break, she starts right on time and calls out to the participants who are not in the class when she wants to start. After the break she attempts to lighten things up a bit by telling a humorous story about an older gentleman who felt he was too old to learn new things, but eventually was proved wrong…a few in her class responds with a laughs, but for most, the story seems not to have the intended effect.

Zoe continues to provide exercises for practice in the subject matter and puts participants into small groups to present their findings. They seem to work better without her involvement. She ends the morning with a high level of frustration, but is glad she got through all the materials in the time she was assigned. When her evaluations come back she is surprised that she got pretty good marks even from the students who did not seem very involved in the learning.

(Test Yourself) Questions:

What did Zoe not do well? Provide some specific examples.

What did Zoe do well? Provide some specific examples.

(See the end of the chapter for the answers.)

This example clearly illustrates the frustration for facilitators and learners and highlights the need for general cultural sensitivity in any learning situation. When learners are culturally diverse, a lack of cultural metacognition on the part of the facilitator leads to making things more difficult—not easier as facilitation implies.

This example is full of cultural missteps. The outcome of the session was to be learning. However, the facilitator focused on her preferences (which were culturally bound to what works for her or in her culture). She employed methodologies and questioning techniques she had used in similar situations with mono-cultural learners. She did not understanding the cultural drivers for the people who attended this program. She showed a lack of respect for the learner and did not understand how to engage them to learn. So, instead of learning, she may have caused headquarters Human Resources to lose respect (face) and she may have contributed to frustrating the employees who attended her session rather than making learning easier.

We use this example to point out how easy it is to be perceived as “culturally insensitive.” Here are just some of her errors:

1. Zoe called on each person and asked them to reveal something about themselves—in group orientated countries this is highly unusual and very difficult.
2. Zoe embarrassed Zeng Ding by calling on him and pushing for a “better answer.” In some countries education is highly valued so he was correct that this program may have been his greatest accomplishment.
3. She misread his looking down after answering—which in his culture is a sign of respect.
4. She focused on getting the materials completed in the time frame not on whether the learning actually took place.
5. She missed the discomfort she caused when she talked about an older gentleman learner being wrong.
6. She mistook the meaning of the silence. (Did she think it was disinterest or inability?) So she concentrated on those participants were willing to offer their individual opinion.

To repeat…to facilitate is to “make easy.” In making it easy for learners, we must better understand what cultural values and experiences the participants bring to a learning scenario. Effective facilitators will adjust to the learning styles of their participants. To be a good facilitator in multi-cultural learning situations and workshops, we must have a sense of what makes learning and involvement easier for participants.

Our cultural values, learned early and deeply embedded, drive what we think is acceptable behavior throughout each stage of creating and delivering a learning situation. If we, as professionals are not careful, we will allow our unconscious bias to define how we design and deliver learning opportunities. We will base the “how we do what we do” on our preferences, not those of others—thus making it more difficult for them and easier for us. To prevent this we need to start with some basic culture terminology.

Culture Terminology

Cultural dimension are complex and do not exist in isolation. However, we need to start with some basic culture terminology so we understand what Zoe missed in her facilitation. Dr. Geert Hofsgtede has done some of the widest and longitudinal research in the cultural field and his dimensions and orientations will be used as the framework to talk about culture in this chapter.

Figure 9.1 – Cross-Cultural Facilitation Framework

“Cultural Metacognition refers to a person’s reflective thinking about his or her cultural assumptions. Cultural metacognition seems to have a strong effect on how people effectively collaborate across cultures.” (Harvard Assistant Professor Roy Y.A. Chua)

Dr. Geert Hofsgtede’s research highlights five dimensions:

1. Individualism (Individual or Group Orientation)
2. Power Distance (Hierarchical or Participative Orientations)
3. Certainty (Need for Certainty or Tolerance for Ambiguity)
4. Achievement (Achievement or Quality of Life Orientation)
5. Time Orientation (Long or Short Term Orientation).

These terms will be used and examples given to help facilitate understanding for the reader.

Term Definitions

Cultural definition: Culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others.

Individualism Dimension: Individualism is the degree to which decisions are made for the benefit of the individual, or for the benefit of the group. The orientations for this dimension are Individual or Group Orientation.

Power Distance Dimension: Power Distance is the degree to which inequality or distance between those in charge and the less powerful (subordinates) is accepted. The orientations for this dimension are Hierarchical or Participative Orientation.

Certainty Dimension: Certainty is the extent to which people prefer rules, regulations and controls, or are more comfortable with unstructured, ambiguous or unpredictable situations. The orientations for this dimension are Need for Certainty or Tolerance for Ambiguity Orientation.

Achievement Dimension: Achievement is defined as the degree to which we focus on goal achievement and work or quality of life and caring for others. The orientations for this dimension are Achievement or Quality of Life Orientation.

Time Orientation Dimension: Time Orientation the extent to which members of a society are prepared to adapt themselves to reach a desirable future, or the extent to which they take their guidance from the past and focus on fulfilling their present needs and desires. The orientations for this dimension are Long Term or Short Term Orientation.

Culture Applied to Learning

In the world of learning and development, the definition of “facilitator” is, “…one that helps to bring about an outcome (as learning, productivity, or communication) by providing indirect or unobtrusive assistance, guidance, or supervision (for example, the workshop’s facilitator kept discussion flowing smoothly…).” While training is a type of facilitation (learning transfer); it can be different in application from general facilitation in some cultures.

• A trainer is defined as “a person who teaches” implying that the trainer possesses the knowledge and “owns” the learning. A subject matter expert who is introducing his/her specialty to others is a good example of this.
• The difference with facilitation is that facilitators create an environment where the learning can take place. This implies that the learner owns the learning. The facilitator creates the scenarios for thinking things through and helping the learners come to conclusions without necessarily being “told” the answers.

This is an important distinction when working across cultures. In more of the Western cultures, it is incumbent on the students to be responsible for their learning.

In many High Power Distance cultures, it is the professional who is responsible to make sure learning occurs. In India, for example, for thousands of years under their caste system, the Brahmins were held in highest regard. People of this caste were found in professions including Hindu priests, artists, teachers, technicians. And not unlike the religious leaders in Early Europe, they were educated and could read. In many parts of the world, teachers—and learning—are still held in high regard. In India, due to cultural nuances such as deference to elders and deference to those who are better educated, there is still pressure on those delivering the learning materials to “own” the learning. It is incumbent upon them to assure the students learn.

An Aspect of Power Distance

Hierarchical Orientation = Employees are expected to follow through as ordered; they are less likely to suggest solutions for problems unless specifically asked/told.

Participative Orientation = Employees are expected to go to managers to report on progress and suggest approaches to problem solving.

In Western cultures, it is more incumbent on the students to be responsible for their learning.

Other Differences

You might be surprised that in some countries, class discussion is not the norm and, in fact, it is uncomfortable for certain students to speak up or challenge other students’ opinions. This is likely due to Group Orientation (as opposed to Individual Orientation). When a culture values harmony, there is less likelihood of challenging discussions.

There is less likelihood of learners (or employees for that matter) asking challenging questions or bringing up challenging issues. There is a preference for a group response and opinion, rather than an individual one. Small group work in learning situations is very comfortable. In many Western schools, small group work or students helping other students is still seen as “cheating.” (Thus reinforcing the Individual and Achievement Orientations – do it yourself attitudes in Western countries and competing against others as opposed to Group and Quality of Life Orientations which include behaviors such as cooperation and helping each other – typical in Asian and other cultures.)

An Aspect of Achievement

Achievement Orientation = Assertiveness, competitiveness and ambition are virtues.

Quality of Life Orientation = Modesty, solidarity, and helping others are virtues.

Tension Between Individual or Group Orientations:

In collectivistic [Group Oriented] cultures, people will assess themselves in terms of their ability to maintain harmonious relationships with others. One’s identity is the group: the family, neighborhood, school, or the company where one works. Words for the concepts identity and personality in terms of a person separate from the context do not even exist in the Chinese and Japanese languages. (Source: Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior: A Review of Research Findings. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23:181–192, 2011 ©2011 Marieke de Mooij and Geert Hofstede).

Again in the West, we expect people to have and express their own opinions, but this is not the case in much of the rest of the world. As an example, a consultant was providing a program for the Biostatistics and Clinical Programming department of a major global pharmaceutical company. The class was in held in the US where over 70 percent of the members of the department were of Chinese descent. The class was being observed by an American who attended due to an interest in the subject. At the first break he approached the facilitator and said, “I noticed that you are reluctant to call on anyone in the class and you keep putting them into small groups. Why don’t you just call on people?”

He was unfamiliar with the scenario that if an instructor were to call on an individual and that individual did not know the answer it would be the instructor who lost face, not just the student. He was uncomfortable with the approach to attend to the preferences of the learners – to come up with a group opinion rather than an individual one. If he has been the instructor, the learner would not have had it easy.

An Aspect of Individualism

Individual Orientation = Speaking one’s mind is a characteristic of an honest person.

Group Orientation = Harmony should always be maintained and direct confrontations avoided.

Tension Between Task and Relationship

This same person then asked, “Well wouldn’t it be faster to get through the materials if you just called on one person instead of spending time letting them discuss in small groups?” Here he was expressing a lack of understanding of the difference between task and relationship.

An Aspect of Individualism

Individual Orientation = Task prevails over relationship.

Group Orientation = Relationship prevails over task.

He felt that the need to get through the material (the task) was more important than making sure the students were comfortable, which consists of getting to know and trust their learning colleagues better through small group interactions.

Stages for Developing Learning in Training or Workshops

In the learning and development world, there are a series of steps to assure that the investment in attendees is effective and ensures change. Let’s focus on each stage of the process of creating learning situations and workshops. We will look at each through the lenses of culture and “facilitation”—making it easy.

These stages include:

1. Data Gathering/Needs Assessment
2. Program Design
3. Methodology Selection
4. Delivery Style
5. Creation of Participant Learning Materials.

Stage 1: Data Gathering/Needs Assessment

To design an effective learning situation it is most helpful if the outcomes required are made clear to the designers (to make it easier for them to succeed in their part of the process). Of course this process of gathering information involves people in the company who are typically not the “end user” (learners). They might be the department head, a functional head, supervisors, or executives, in addition to the learners. If we are going to facilitate a needs assessment/data gathering conversation, how do we make it easy for them to provide information? Here are a few culturally nuanced ideas on how to be effective as well as culturally appropriate:

1. For those with a more Individual Orientation and Participative Orientation—they might prefer to just answer an emailed set of questions.
2. For someone who prefers a more hierarchical approach:

1. Arrange a formal introduction to that person by someone at his/her level before trying to collect information.
2. Treat the person with the information with the utmost respect.
3. Behave formally when conversing.
4. If the interviewee has a Need for Certainty (as opposed to a Tolerance or Ambiguity)

1. You will be more effective if you provide the questions you intend to ask well in advance so they know what to expect.
2. Clearly express how long you need to spend with them so they know what to expect.
3. Make clear what you will do with the information they give you in advance of the collection of the data.

Stage 2: Program Design

Designing effective training requires a thorough understanding of the needs of the trainees. And knowing what outcomes are expected helps inform content and the design methodologies used. Modification becomes even more critical to the success of a training program when it is presented to audiences of different nationalities or audiences of multiple cultural backgrounds within a single program.

Once the issues and sponsor-determined outcomes have been clarified, the program design begins. Now you need to think about the learners and what will make it easier for them. What is different when design of learning is cross-cultural?

An Aspect of the Certainty Dimension

Need for Certainty = Comfortable in structured environments.

Tolerance for Ambiguity Orientation = Trying new approaches is encouraged.

Things to consider:

• Amount of clarity varies (Need for Certainty). Note: Need for Certainty and Tolerance for Ambiguity are orientations describing the Certainty Dimension.
• Process expectations may differ (Power Distance).
• Expectations of leader responsibilities may differ (Power Distance).
• More difficult to build relationships (Individualism).
• Communication is more difficult.
  • English is an acquired language for many and they may have learned British English so there is greater likelihood for misinterpretation.
  • Accents may be more difficult to understand.
• Thinking processes may differ (convergent vs. divergent thinking).
• Willingness to disagree/differ/discuss may differ.

Here are some strategies:

1. Many cultures expect and want a lot of context, background and history. Others want “the bottom line.” Western designers tend to forget the importance of providing much more information than they think is needed. Appendices, pre-readings (both of which are task focused) and discussion groups or focus groups prior to the formal session (relationship oriented) and various other techniques help bring the learners to the same understanding of context in ways that meet their cultural preferences.
2. In high Need for Certainty Cultures, training takes longer, sometimes as much as twice as long.
3. In high Power Distance Cultures, the program and the presenter need to be introduced by the sponsor (a senior executive) to give “weight” to the importance of the time spent.

Stage 3: Methodology Selection

In choosing methodologies, designers of domestic programs already understand the importance of sensitivity to the needs and preferences of the trainee. Designers must consider regional preferences, levels within an organization, and/or differences between functions.

Senior management usually wants training in shorter bursts rather than full days. Middle management and lower levels of the organization seem to prefer the opportunity to practice what they learn, which takes more time than many executives are willing to give. Short trigger stories, which are designed to stimulate thinking and learning, should contain different content for training software engineers than they would for those in marketing, customer service, or facilities management.

Program designers use information about the variety of cultural approach preferences, as measured by assessments like ITAP International, Inc.’s Culture in the Workplace Questionnaire™ (to CWQ), to help inform their choice of varied methodologies for activities.

Both trainers/instructors and facilitators cannot assume that all participants in a learning situation come with the same framework, understanding, context, willingness to learn, and so forth. Anyone who has conducted learning sessions (or managed more than one person at a time) will tell you that everyone is different. A tactic that may work with one person may completely fail when used with another. This is most true when working with or helping people from a variety of cultural backgrounds. Here is what you might want to do differently to align with various cultural orientations:

• Need for Certainty. Prepare a detailed agenda and distribute it in advance. Include time allotments and stick to the time schedule. Make sure you leave ample time for all the activities and debriefs. Put more time in the schedule rather than cramming too much into the program.
• Allocate more time for every topic/stage.
• Limit the topics to be covered and list them using simple, clear sentences.
• Clearly define outcomes desired.
• Give adequate notice of the session (more than you might usually give).
• Send program materials out well in advance for review. People who speak English as an acquired language may need extra time to make sure they understand what will be covered. They may read English better them they speak it and they may need time (in advance of the program) to review the materials.
• Do not assume that because a particular methodology typically works well in your home country that it also will work well in a multi-cultural setting. One example of an activity that works well with participants who have an Individual and Participative Orientation is Brainstorming. This does not work well in “cultures of silence” with those who have a group orientation. It also may not work well if there are multiple levels of employees in the session. If participants have a preference for hierarchy, the higher level employees will be deferred to by the others.

Stage 4: Delivery Style

In formal learning situations, facilitation is defined quite differently than training. Simply put, training is more about “telling” and facilitation is more about “leading the thinking process to better understanding through unobtrusive guidance.” Facilitators tend to be neutral individuals who act as a catalyst for the group of learners. Trainers may be subject matter experts who are sharing their knowledge to groups of learners.

Understanding cultural national preferences is a critical part of knowing your international audiences. Delivery style preferences vary greatly from country to country. What is different?

• In countries with cultural preferences for hierarchy (like Japan or France), “good” training tends to be defined as a transfer of information and knowledge from the professor to the students with limited interaction with the students. In hierarchical countries, training design tends to incorporate a higher proportion of lectures.
• People who have a preference for hierarchy may expect and prefer the facilitator to lecture (tell) rather than facilitate.
• People may not participate until invited (or until there is silence to give respect). Others may talk over or interrupt those who are trying to be what is deemed as polite in their cultures.
• Preference for in-person (relationships) vs. technology (task) may vary.
• Lack of familiarity with or preferences for certain tools/techniques (not all societies have the same level of technology available to them even in the work place).
• People may not know of, or be comfortable with, certain learning approaches, or may not prefer them.
• Lack of understanding will not necessarily mean questions are asked (Group or Hierarchical Orientations).
• Many may speak English as an acquired language (and therefore lose much of the nuance that native speakers take for granted).
• You might want to consider having an interpreter. Please note that interpreters are different from translators. Interpreters will interpret what they think you mean, rather than translate directly/exactly.
• If you use an interpreter, count on at least doubling the time for the program.
• If you have natural cultural groups, allow natural culture groups to discuss the nuances in their mother tongue for periods of time to make sure they understand nuances. Give them time to ask questions in English.

  An Aspect of the Time Orientation

  Long Term Orientation = Success over a long time horizon is valued.

  Short Term Orientation = Quick results are expected.

What you might want to do differently:

• Allow for social networking time (Group Orientation).
• Have senior executives speak (Hierarchical Orientation).
• Be patient (Long term and Quality of Life Orientation). Note: Long and Short Term Orientations are orientations describing the Time Orientation Dimension.
• Allow pauses (thinking/responding time especially for those who need to translate).
• Use clear, concise words/sentences (simple words and phrases that get the point across and do not confuse people).
• Explain in more than one way.
• Allow for small group work vs. individual work (Group Orientation).
• Do more explanation and provide examples (Need for Certainty).
• Call on participants (Participative Orientation) or explain that you intend to go around the room expecting everyone to participate (more hierarchical because you delegated each person the responsibility to speak).
• Share more information and context (Need for Certainty).
• Use “signpost” language. Tell them in advance what is coming up next. For example you might say, “After the break of ten minutes, we will be …” Think of this as serving the same purpose as road signs so that you know in advance what is happening.
• Now a word about e-learning. Internet and computer usage varies significantly from country to country. Some countries, like the U.S., Canada and Scandinavian countries, have embraced these technologies and are pushing for more learning via technology (task focused). Technology comfort and usage in other countries (even in developed countries like France and Italy) is usually limited to younger generations. As a result, on-line training programs designed for mid-level executives are likely to be received rather more positively in the U.S. but could be received quite negatively in France or Italy.
• Make sure that the audience has the infrastructure, the knowledge of how to use it, and the willingness to use it before investing in on-line delivery.

Stage 5: Creation of Participant Learning Materials

1. Use lots of visuals (simple words and expressive graphics) for those who speak English as an acquired language.
2. Make sure the colors and other graphics are universally understood and inoffensive.
3. Translate the materials into the mother tongue of the participants. If you translate the materials make sure you have someone other than the original translator/translation company do a back translation so you can be sure the initial translation was accurate.
4. Use and refer to page numbers to help them follow along.
5. Many cultures need more context than Americans typically do (we like bullet points and short answers). Use appendices and handouts to provide this so that those who need it, have it and others can glance through.
6. Like politics, almost all examples provided within programs should be locally derived. To cite Martin Luther King Jr. as an ideal for leadership is meaningful to Americans, but means less to the French or the Japanese.
7. Ask a learning professional or resource expert to go through the program content and materials outline to provide more appropriate examples.

Review of Zoe’s situation

Refer to the case study at the beginning of this chapter.

Test Yourself:

What did Zoe do well? (Provide specific examples.) What did Zoe not do well? (Provide specific examples.) The Answers to the questions are below.

What did Zoe do well?

• Zoe did not realize it, but putting them into small groups worked better than calling on individuals to answer questions.
• By company standards she got a good evaluation. (In Asia, one is likely to get a good evaluation to create harmony and not cause anyone to lose face.)
• She praised one participant by asking for an explanation of the acronym PMBOK® (Project Management Body of Knowledge).

What did Zoe not do well? She:

• Did not plan enough time for the program. When you have non-English speakers in a program give yourself more time for them to learn.
• Did not introduce her expertise (she is displaying Tolerance for Ambiguity Orientation). She would have been more respected if she’d had a senior executive introduce her (Hierarchical Orientation).
• Used the term icebreaker which does not translate at all meaningfully in some cultures.
• Used an icebreaker that is more effective in cultures comfortable with pointing out their accomplishments.
• Used PowerPoint slides, which tend to have little context. Some cultures need a lot more information than others do especially when they speak English as an acquired language.
• Did not understand naming conventions in some Asian cultures (last name first) and called Mr. Zeng by his last name because it was first in the sequence of names.
• Did not understand what an honor it might actually have been for Ding to have been selected to attend this session.
• Lost face by her individual questions because if the student does not know the answer the trainer loses as much face as the learner.
• Recommended that everyone ask questions like the one participant who asked for an explanation of the acronym PMBOK® (Project Management Body of Knowledge). Speaking up and asking questions may seem like challenging the leader in some cultures—it is better to remain silent.
• Complained about her class within earshot of others (rude in almost any culture) and this caused them to lose face. She also assumed they were not prepared, which may not have been the issue at all.
• Focused on being on time rather than assuming the learning has taken place.
• Made a comment about an “older gentleman,” which could have been perceived as disrespectful to the elderly.
• Assumed that her evaluations were an accurate reflection of her doing a good job.

Helpful Hints

Culture is deeply embedded and values that drive workplace behaviors are not easily changed. Recognize that people are going to do things differently from the way you might do them. Different is not necessarily better or worse—it may just be different. Respect others and their approaches. They, too, want to succeed and are for the most part. They want to do an effective job. Find ways to reconcile how to work together that takes into account the differences in your approaches. Clearly outline what is expected in some detail (Need for Certainty). That and clear, frequent communication are very helpful approaches in identifying differences and working to find ways to honor, yet reconcile those differences.

First and foremost, know your audience! If you cannot really know who they are (culturally) then, as in any facilitation activity, carefully watch the audience. If what you are doing does not work, or does not work for some of them then switch it up. Talk about learning and cultural style differences so that everyone knows why you are doing things a little differently. Get them into small groups to talk about and present what they are thinking should change.

Professor Roy Y.J. Chua, Assistant Professor, Organizational Behavior Unit, Harvard Business School says, “Managing cultural friction not only creates a harmonious workplace, but ensures you reap the benefits of multiculturalism at its best.” (Source: Blanding, Michael, Cultural Disharmony Undermines Workplace Creativity, Harvard Business School Working Knowledge Magazine, 09 Dec 2013.)