Given that the collaboration involved three distinct cultures, ‘intercultural awareness’ was planned as the primary focus of the agenda. However, the manager rightly understood that awareness alone wouldn’t be enough to help his team or, ultimately, the business.

‍

The intervention

‍

From experience, we knew that the real issue wasrarely a lack of cultural knowledge; more often, it was a lack of open andtransparent communication. So, we decided to have the 2-day workshopfacilitated by someone not only well-versed in the cultures involved but, moreimportantly, comfortable with “discussing the undiscussable.” Why did theChinese feel disrespected and micromanaged by the Dutch, whom they privatelynamed as ‘arrogant’ and ‘insensitive’? Why did the Americans question thecommitment of both the Dutch management and the Chinese engineering teams? Andwhy did the Dutch insist they always had the right solution to any problemarising in China or the US?

Trust, as it turned out, had different meanings foreach team: reliability for the U.S., respect and appreciation for China, andtransparency for the Netherlands. While these seemed cultural on the surface,it quickly became clear that a traditional cross-cultural training would onlyscratch the surface of the real problem.

Through honest, facilitated discussions, each teambegan to understand how their behavior was interpreted by others. The Dutch,for instance, saw that their directness was perceived as insensitivity, whilethe Americans learned that their rapid decision-making appeared reckless totheir global colleagues.

The turning point came when a sufficient level oftrust was built on the first day (and especially during the evening) betweenthe teams. This foundation allowed them to share frustrations and concerns thefollowing day without accusing one another of having bad intentions. It wasboth comforting and motivating for everyone to realize that they shared thesame ambitions, but simply had different approaches to achieving them.

An issue initially disguised as a cross-culturaldifficulty turned out to be a broader, underlying problem: a lack of curiosity,interest, and sensitivity towards those who think differently. Addressing thisdeeper pain required sensitivity and tact. In the safe environment that wascreated, it cleared the air between the three teams and led to firm agreementson the next steps. These insights and concrete actions were not just capturedin flashy PowerPoint slides—they were consistently followed up and reviewedwith each team every month. Over time, the teams began to hold each otheraccountable for their commitments. Mistrust gave way to accountability.

Twelve months later, not everything was perfect.International collaboration is—and will always be—marked by misunderstandingsand uncertainties. However, what had fundamentally changed was the team'sability to openly address their issues. The manager was now more confident andhad seen the first signs of a team united by a common goal, willing to confrontissues head-on, and successfully delivering to the rapidly growing client baseof the business line.

The key takeaway? Always dig deeper before deciding onthe intervention. In the end, this was less about culture and more aboutcuriosity, empathy, and accountability. By recognizing and addressing thesecore issues, the teams moved from mistrust to collaboration, driving the firmtoward continued global success.

‍