In team building and development sessions within the western world, most of the intervention is done with the group with the OD expert serving as a facilitator, who provides the setting, provides stimuli to keep things on tract and suggest meaning and context.

In very diverse global teams, this is not the case. Intervention tools are not slightly different; they are very different. I will point out the most salient differences for me as a facilitator.

• Many issues cannot be discussed in the group setting due to face saving, authoritarian leadership styles and obtuse face-saving communication patterns. These issues need to be cleared off the table before the session and/or taken off line after the session.
• The facilitator cannot just facilitate; meetings need to be more controlled in because that is the expectation from the “people in charge”, who need to be more “expert” and less loosie-goosy.
• Often, the facilitator needs to take into account the age of the participants, showing an exaggerated respect to the team manager. “Mister Ho, it’s time for lunch, is it ok with you?
• Silence is often loud protest and must be treated as such.
• Agreement is often feigned, and needs to be “treated” off line.

Case #1

A Western OD facilitator was brought in to run a team development session for a global team based in Southeast Asia. Expecting an open dialogue, she began with group sharing exercises. The room was polite—but silent. The team leader spoke briefly; others nodded in agreement.

Privately, however, several participants later told her they disagreed strongly with key decisions but would not challenge the manager publicly. Recognizing this, the facilitator shifted her approach. Before the next session, she conducted one-on-one conversations to surface hidden tensions. During the meeting, she took a more structured, directive role and frequently checked in with the manager: “Mr. Ho, would you like us to explore this further?”

She learned that silence signaled resistance, not consent, and that real alignment required careful off-line work rather than relying on group discussion alone.

Case #2

A facilitator led a project alignment session with Chinese, German, and Canadian team members. She opened with a typical Western-style roundtable. The Canadians spoke openly, the Germans offered direct critiques, and the Chinese participants remained quiet, nodding along.

Tension surfaced quickly: Germans perceived agreement, Canadians sensed unease, and the Chinese team later expressed concerns privately about loss of face and unclear authority. The facilitator adapted. She held pre-meetings with the Chinese members to surface concerns, then structured the session tightly, signaling when input was expected and validating hierarchy by deferring to the senior Chinese manager.

During the meeting, she interpreted silence as possible dissent and followed up individually afterward. What appeared as alignment in the room required careful off-line work to uncover real positions and build genuine commitment across cultures.

Many organizations go through a series of “cosmetic operations.” They produce a mission statement displayed on billboards or laptop screens, a list of critical success factors such as “the customer is king,” and cultural guidelines like “decision making through buy-in” or “assume total ownership of issues—whatever the cost.”

These elements can be genuine. But sometimes they resemble cosmetic enhancements—a toupee, fake breasts, or a facelift—covering what is, underneath, a very well-used vehicle.

For example, making “buy-in” the primary method of decision-making can turn decisions into apparent commitments rather than real ones. “Total ownership” can sometimes mean that everyone ends up doing everyone else’s job.

If you are consulting with an organization that has some or all of these features—often implemented by someone reporting into HR—here are a few guidelines to help you avoid getting kicked in the ass for being an “atheist,” meaning someone who refuses to drink the company’s Kool-Aid.

First rule: do not argue with the statements themselves.
Treat them as they are—as sacred texts. Think of them as Bibles in the drawer beside a drug dealer’s bed.

Every one of these precepts has side effects.
Work on the side effects rather than challenging the precepts directly.

For example:

• Do the organization’s heroes actually follow the rules? Often they do not.

• Why does the organization claim that “the customer is king” while routinely mistreating customers?

Focus quietly on the underlying drivers of these contradictions. Explore them discreetly, often at a senior level. Is the emphasis on “customer first” driven by marketing? Public relations? Internal politics?

But again: do not argue with the precepts themselves.

If you work carefully—and if you are lucky—those statements will remain on the wall while the organization begins to deal with its real issues.

This is reform and evolution, not revolution.

The slogans and decorative elements may stay in place, much like the portraits of Stalin or Mao that once hung on walls. But the actual behavior of the organization can change.

This is a short article, but it is carefully thought out. You may need to read it more than once. I welcome questions and will respond to comments.

Postscript

Suppose “Customer is King” is an official value, while in practice customers are treated like toilet paper.

Rather than attacking the slogan, take another approach.
Let the King remain King.

Instead, examine individual customer complaints like an ethnographer studying a culture.

The slogan stays on the wall.
But the investigation reveals that while the aggregate numbers look good, the individual customer experiences can be severe.

That is where the real work begins.

I have just finished reading Nancy Scheper Hughes ethnography Death without Weeping-The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil; this ethnography outlines how universal maternal instincts are not so instinctive nor universal. The death of young children In northeastern Brazil (Bom Jesus) is often “enabled” by the mother; no mourning whatsoever takes place, and even childrens’ names are not assigned until their death-in their lifetime they can be referred to as “little tykes” or miserable “critters”.

This brilliant yet shocking ethnography led me to think-are there organizations where everything we take for granted (the metaphor being maternal love) may be turned upside down on its head? My resounding answer is “of course”. Many organizations can define logic, or to be more accurate, the observers’ logic, which in our case in OD has very many biases.

I have been lucky enough to have worked all over the world; I want to point out 5 things that I have seen that are very logical if you see them from the inside, but quite in-comprehendible when observed out of cultural  context.

1. A manager is seen as not deserving his stars until he brutally cuts down to size subordinates who may have been vying for his job.
2. Meetings with no agenda and no discipline which generate effective decisions.
3. Lying is acceptable behaviour as long as you make sure that the facts are stated in opaque mutterings.
4. Structureless organizations with a rigid hierarchy.
5. A rigid hierarchy where everything gets done via bypassing the system

In fact, I really do not think that we in OD (and management) really understand that  positive organizational behaviour  is not achieved by drinking some elixir or following certain principles. Each organization is, in many ways, sui generis, one of a kind.

Conclusions

The key conclusion is that organizational behavior cannot be reliably judged through universal management or OD (organizational development) principles alone. What appears dysfunctional from the outside may be functional within a specific cultural and organizational ecosystem. Therefore:

• Organizational logic is context-bound, not universal.

• Observer bias strongly shapes OD diagnosis and intervention.

• Practices labeled “bad” or “irrational” may serve stabilizing or legitimizing functions internally.

• Culture often overrides formal structure and stated values.

• Each organization should be treated as sui generis—requiring ethnographic sensitivity rather than prescriptive frameworks.

The broader implication is that OD practitioners should adopt a more anthropological stance: suspend assumptions, study lived reality, and interpret behavior within its native context before prescribing change.

Plenty of posts and videos show younger people being presented with, and ask to identify, things like dial-up internet, analog telephones and fax machines. My memories precede these artifacts.

I am going to date myself since this post deals with much older, even ancient, yet very beloved memories of the antiquated equipment/accessories that I have used, and worse than that, still wish they were in service today.

Our school desks all had ink wells, into which we inserted bottles of ink, provided by the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal, aka Bureau métropolitain des écoles protestantes de Montréal. The Board also gave each pupil a fountain pen, and a nib. Upon hitting the floor, the nib would break, and ink would be splattered hither, thither and yon. Grace a dieu, we are also provided with blotting pads, to blot the ink from pearls of wisdom we wrote, and/or, for the ink which splattered on the floor.

You could break one nib, which could be labelled as unfortunate, or carelessness. Break two nibs, and you did not get a third strike, but rather a detention, meaning, walking home in the dark at 4 PM.

At the beginning of each school year, there was a sale of old text books, used by previous students. In each used book, there was a stamp which could read:

PSBGM

1961 Sherman Waxman

1962 Sophie LaLonde

1963 Glen Snow

I am not a materialist, but I always preferred new books, except for math. I knew that nothing could save my white ass from algebra or geometry. Whether or not you purchased a used book and bought a new one, a book cover was provided by  RBC Banque Royale, aka The Royal Bank of Canada. These paper covers featured  pics of bankers at work in a branch of course, as well as high buildings and places of employment.

Some teachers rationed these book covers, others believed “to each according to his needs”. I loved these book covers, and tried to weasel as many as I could. “And what is that wad of book covers doing in your hand?”

On each book cover were two lines: Name & Subject. We were all given one hour to wrap these books. “No need to giggle and chatter-wrap the books and then read one of them; this is not a social gathering. Did you hear what I said?”

New books and new paper covers each had a distinct smell. The ink made stains.

They all made sweet memories of a simpler place in time.

In the Western world, most organizational development consultants take planning for granted. Whether it’s a detailed master plan, an MS Project file, or a simple Excel spreadsheet, having a plan is seen as basic professional practice. Plans define deliverables, clarify roles and responsibilities, and set timelines.

At first glance, the value of planning seems obvious. It brings order, focus, and direction. One would expect everyone to agree on its importance. Yet that assumption does not always hold.

Through my work, I’ve learned that planning carries very different meanings for different people. Some view plans as an illusion of control—tools used by those who believe they can fully manage their environment. Others see plans as barriers to creativity, arguing that real change comes from ingenuity and improvisation, not rigid frameworks. There are also those who feel that planning is more about control than about actually getting things done.

A client in Egypt once taught me an Arabic saying that captures this mindset perfectly:
“Isal el rafik kabl el tariq” — Ask who you will travel with, not which road you will take.

Many people I work with see planning not as a help, but as an unhealthy fixation.

Because I am personally disciplined and naturally inclined to plan, these ideas were difficult for me to accept at first. But once I did, the impact was immediate. Collaboration improved dramatically in places like India, Taiwan, Israel, Thailand, and Indonesia.

By acknowledging different assumptions about planning—especially when working with Germans, Americans, Brits, and Dutch alongside cultures that value planning less—I was able to adapt my approach and achieve far better results.

Bottom line, some cultures assume that they have more control of the universe. These cultures PLAN how to take the reins into their own hands. Other cultures assume that the world is chaotic and impossible to control, thus the need to improvise and adapt as we march along.

When a manager imposes a single communication style on cultures that value either face-saving or extreme directness, the outcome is often fatal.

The vessel of communication must fit the audience.
This is not a matter of “training people to be open and authentic.”
It’s about cultural intelligence, not good intentions.

Here’s a real illustration.

Harry Foreman, SVP APAC+ & ME+, brought together his two divisions at the Centara Grand at CentralWorld, Bangkok, for a three-day sales conference. The objective was clear:
drive strict adherence to the product roadmap and stop client-driven customization.

Harry — sweating like only a farang can sweat despite air-conditioning set to 75°F — opened with a request:

“Please listen first. Then we will have an open dialogue, not debate.”

He launched into a 33-slide presentation explaining why:

• the roadmap must be respected

• no deviations would be allowed

• customers must wait 17 months for the next major release

• sales must “manage customer expectations” and “dig in our heels”

Then came the invitation:

“OK guys — discussion. Who’s first?”

Takahashi (Japan) spoke first.
She thanked Harry warmly and added:

“And I thank Foreman-san in advance for even more tools and details for M (key customer).”

Message received by Harry: full alignment, missing the “even more” subtle clue.
Message received by everyone else: total evasion.

KT (India) began explaining how the Indian market requires cheap, heavily customized solutions that ultimately pay off through volume.

Harry interrupted:

“Are you debating?”

KT immediately replied:

“We are in full agreement, Sir.”

Dov (“Bear”), Israel, didn’t bother with diplomacy:

“This won’t fly. I don’t care if you call it a debate or a watermelon — with all my love for you, Harry, you’re way off.”

Harry smiled:

“I guess we all know Dov’s style. Please, guys — no debate.”

Som (Thailand) sat quietly, smiling.
As the best-performing country manager in the division, Harry pressed her:

“Khun Som, please — speak up.”

Wearing a bright orange outfit (a linguistic irony in Thai since Som means orange), Som smiled — the smile of embarrassment:

“I am tsua that market forces cannot be changed. And we also know Khun Harry is very senior. I am tsua we all know what to do. Thank you, Harry.”

Her thick accent ensured that no one really understood her — but Harry thanked her for the “positive input.”

At lunch, bets were already being placed on how long Harry would last.

Som was the most adamant:

“Why corporate always send their shit managers here to talk bla bla?”

The Lesson

What failed here was not strategy.
What failed was cross-cultural leadership. It is absurd to expect everyone to understand the same thing about “dialogue” especially after a senior manager has given his marching orders, except for cultures where management direction is merely a suggestion. “Dialogue” means radically different things across cultures:

• In Japan and Thailand, it protects hierarchy and harmony via subtleness

• In Israel, it is debate

• In India, agreement may mean temporary compliance

Treating communication style as universal is a management illusion — and a costly one.

Why I Share This

I’ve spent years working across Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the U.S., helping leaders and organizations avoid exactly this kind of failure.

Strategy doesn’t fail in PowerPoint.
It fails in the room, when culture is ignored.

If you manage global teams and still believe that “open dialogue” means the same thing everywhere — this story should make you uncomfortable.

And it should.