Sophisticated Stereotypes

Cultural stereotypes at work rarely arrive as prejudice. They arrive as preparation — and that's exactly what makes them so hard to spot.

You did the reading. A new colleague was joining from a region you hadn't worked with much, so you learned what to expect and adjusted: softened your delivery, slowed the meeting down, held back the direct question. Then you met them, and none of it fit. The careful accommodation you'd built landed as hesitancy, and it took weeks to work out what had gone wrong.

The guide wasn't lying to you. It was describing an average. You were dealing with a person.

This episode unpicks why even the most diligent, well-prepared leaders walk into this — and what to do instead:

• What cultural frameworks actually measure — populations, not the person in your Tuesday meeting
• The ecological fallacy, and why the variation within any country dwarfs the gap between countries
• "Sophisticated stereotyping" — why a stereotype built from real research is harder to shake than a crude one, because we defend it instead of dropping it
• Four moves you can start this week: hold the framework as a hypothesis not a conclusion, ask people directly how they like to work, widen the explanations you reach for before culture, and update fast — out loud

The frameworks earn their place when they make you curious. They cost you when they make you certain.

—

If cultural friction is a live issue for your team right now, that's exactly the kind of thing I work through with leaders one-to-one — advisory, coaching and workshops. Find out more at brendanthomasquinn.com.

New here? Hit follow so you don't miss the next episode.

References: Osland & Bird (2000), "Beyond Sophisticated Stereotyping"; Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov (2010), Cultures and Organisations; Gerhart & Fang (2005); Robinson (1950); Meyer (2014), The Culture Map.

Cultural Friction is hosted by Brendan Thomas Quinn who works with leaders and teams navigating cultural friction within teams that work together or are dispersed around the world — as an advisor, coach, and workshop facilitator, and as Adjunct Lecturer on an International Business Masters programme teaching Cross-Cultural Communication, Cultural Friction brings that same real-world, research-backed approach to your ears in 20 minutes.

Enjoying the show? A quick rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify genuinely helps other leaders find it.

And, if you have comments or would like to suggest future topics to be discussed, let us know, we'd love to hear from you.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

SPEAKER_00 0:00

A new colleague was joining your team from a region that you hadn't worked with much before. So you did what a thoughtful person does. You read up on them. You found the guide, the cultural guide, the country profile, the different dimensions about feedback and decisions and meeting styles, all the do's and the don'ts. And it told you what to expect, how directly they'd have that feedback, how they'd handle disagreement, and whether they wanted decisions made in the meeting or taken away and thought about. So you learned about softening your delivery, slowing down meetings, holding back on blunt questions, and then you met them, and none of it fit. They were far blunter than you were, they wanted the decision made on the call. All that careful accommodation that you built is kind of landing as being hesitant, and it's taken a few genuinely awkward weeks to work out what's going on. And here's the thing the guide wasn't lying to you, it was just describing an average. You were dealing with a person. 20 minutes or thereabouts, one real problem, and what you can actually do about it. Today, how the most diligent, best prepared version of you can walk straight into a stereotype. Let's go. If you are enjoying them, please do hit the subscribe, the follow button, the links. That just helps us to get this content out there, more available, especially for people who may well appreciate and want to listen to this kind of content. So thank you very much for joining us. It's great to have you here. Let's get into another topic. Um, we're going to get into one that's uh quite quite current because a lot of us now are using cultural frameworks to learn about potential people coming into our teams, prepare for meetings, prepare for um negotiations, and we need to be really careful about how we're using these frameworks. So let's start with that first meeting because I think a lot of us have kind of lived some version of this. So, what did we do? Um we went out there, we found the information, the cultural defaults of this person that's coming into our team. We've done the research, we've tried to understand how they operate, we've been super diligent, and we've done a really good job to be prepared to know how to work with this particular person. And that preparedness, that that research, that diligence is actually why this is a little bit slippery because what is tripping us up is not that we're being lazy, far from it. We're actually being really careful, and that can be a problem when we're using this information in not the best way. So we've read that people from this particular uh working culture like to give feedback indirectly, so we've been gentle, we've been wrapping our points, uh cushioning them. Um we've asked rather than said, we've left long, generous pauses for a reaction that, you know, in our head is going to be subtle and careful, could be easily missed, so we want to listen carefully for it. Meanwhile, the actual human being that is sitting across the table from us is there thinking, What the hell is this person doing? Why is this person circling around the topic? Why won't they just tell me what they want? Why won't they be direct with me? Um, I've come here ready to make a decision. Um, and it seems that this person is tiptoeing around, like we're tiptoing around the decision. And that gap between those two kinds of understandings, those two um perspectives, um, we prepared for one particular type of person, and actually, what's sitting across from us on the table is somebody of a different uh nature, and these are the cool little details because we'd softened ourselves so thoroughly that we'd removed all of our edges, and to somebody with no edges, no directness, especially as a leader, it's like, well, you know, how do I respect this person? Um, does this person really know what they're doing? Is this person being evasive? Um, you know, maybe they're not really on top of their job, on top of their detail. Um, and so, yeah, all of that hard work that we've done in the first few weeks of this new person joining our team actually is costing us a bit of credibility. So then what do we do? We do the reasonable thing again, we keep adjusting, but we are kind of adjusting in the wrong direction because we're still kind of trying to fit this guide. We know that this particular person is like this, we know that their culture is like this. Uh, and and every time they were direct, some part of us kind of filed that as a way as, well, that's an exception, they're an exception to their their rule, it's like they're an outlier, they're not typical of their culture, they're very westernized, or they're very um uh from the eastern part of the world. And each time you say this to yourself, you notice what happens. We we kind of keep sticking to the guide, but the guide says this, the guide says this. Um, and that person in front of us keeps giving us lots of evidence about who they really are, um, but we're not really taking it, and this is the friction. Um, not that we didn't know anything, it's that we knew quite a lot. Um, we'd done the research, we we knew a lot about this person's particular culture, but the person sitting in front of us is a human being, and uh they are not a uh a kind of a model representation of what their country norms tend to be. So, why does this happen? And why does it catch us out? So I think there's probably two reasons. Reason one the frameworks that we're using measure something real, but not the thing that we're using them for. So cultural frameworks, and this is a big one because we all rely on them. Um, there's been a lot of training, a lot of workplace about you know, this culture's like that, this culture's like this. When these two cultures come together, these are the problems that happen, and sometimes these can be helpful, but often they don't take into account that individual and that and where that individual is coming from. So they describe patterns across whole populations. What they're telling us is that if we look at thousands of people from one working culture and thousands of people from another working culture, and we kind of plotted them on a scale, let's call them clouds, these two clouds would sit in slightly different places on that scale, and this would be on average. What they do not tell us is where any single individual sits inside their own cloud. And there's a name for the mistake of taking a group level finding and pinning it onto a specific member of that group. Researchers call this the ecological fallacy. It's a well-worn trap, it's been documented since the 1950s, and it's genuinely an easy one to fall into because the group level information is right there, it feels like good knowledge, there's lots of research behind it, lots of people are talking about it, they're very popular. And all these frameworks they now feel super new and modern, but really we still have to keep thinking about the individual. Hofstead, whose dimensions are probably some of the most famous, he was completely explicit about this. And he said more than once that his scores describe societies and were never designed to profile individuals. The man who drew the map put a warning label on it, but most of us just dive straight in, straight past that warning, and start using these scales as if they're actually gonna tell us something about the person that's sitting opposite to us. And whilst they might tell us something, they are definitely not gonna tell us everything, and maybe they're not gonna tell us a whole lot. And here's the part that should really change how we hold these things. For most of the cultural values we measure, the variation within any one country is much larger than the average difference between countries. So let me say that in other words. These clouds they overlap and they overlap heavily. So when researchers have gone back and re-crinched the numbers, the country someone comes from often explains only a small slice of how they personally, as an individual, score on these scales. Um, one well-known re-analysis put it down to like low single digits, like a few percent, they just represent a few percent of what that person might behave like. Um, so knowing which cloud someone is from tells us remarkably little about where they personally land within that kind of overall cloud, and almost nothing about how they're going to behave in our Tuesday planning meeting. A framework tells us what to look for, it does not tell us what we've found. Now, the second reason, this kind of stereotyping doesn't feel like stereotyping, but unfortunately it is. It feels a little bit like it's rigor, like we're we're doing some real good work here. If we think about this new person coming into our team and the preparation that we've done for that person, we've done quite quite quite some good work. We went out of our way to learn something before we made assumptions, and that's the opposite of what prejudice is. Or it certainly feels like it. Um, two researchers, Joyce Osland and Alan Byrd, gave this pattern a name. They called it sophisticated stereotyping. Doesn't sound too good, does it? So this stereotyping, um, it's like uh stereotyping but in an expensive pair of trainers or something like that. Um stereotypes, stereotypes are terrible because they they just reduce an entire population to a few uh a few words, you know, it's like this, they're like that, they're like this, and it's just not helpful. Um Chimamander Ngozi does a wonderful uh talk about the power of a single story and how stereotypes are just uh they're just like one little thing. Um they don't tell us the whole story of people, and and as humans, um as individuals, we're coming to work with our whole stories, with our whole um experiences, all of the good, all of the bad, we're bringing all of that to work with us. It's uh we are we are kidding ourselves if we think that we we're leaving parts of us at home because because we're not. Um so when somebody doesn't match kind of this crude stereotype, we kind of drop the stereotype. It was flimsy or it's just a stereotype, so it you know it's just not true. But when but when somebody doesn't match a sophisticated stereotype, we don't drop it. Like, and when I talk about sophisticated stereotypes, I'm talking about some of the some of the things that we can take from these cultural frameworks. Um we often defend them, and and the person we we often say then that this person becomes the exception. They're not typical, they're they're they're different. Um, the model kind of survives the contact with the evidence because we've quietly decided that the evidence is the anomaly and the model is absolutely right. So a sophisticated kind of stereotype, it it just recategorizes reality and carries on. And that's where the real cost sits, to be honest with you. Um if we've decided in advance that a colleague won't want direct feedback, then we stop offering it. If we've decided they need every decision taking away and Moldova, then we stop making the decisions in the meeting. The colleague who would have loved that direct feedback never gets that chance to say so. The prediction never gets tested, so it never gets corrected, and slowly, quietly it becomes the actual shape of the working relationship. It's like we build a version of them and then we spend months managing that version that we've created of them. And uh and there's another thing, the national pattern, it's just one input. It's often not the strongest one. How a person handles disagreement, deadlines, hierarchy, directness, that's shaped at least as much by the organization that they've trained in, the profession they came up through, the last team that they sat on, how much time they've spent working across borders and who they are as a human being. For example, um, I I'm originally from the UK. I trained as a project manager, and project management taught me that being very explicit, being quite direct, recording everything, confirming everything in writing, uh kind of not allowing anything to escape through the net is crucial to ensuring that projects work and that they work well. Now, this kind of goes um a little bit um uh well, not against my my cultural default norms as as someone from the UK, but I am far more explicit, I'm far more direct when it comes to a project management meeting than my natural uh my cultural norms, the frameworks say that I am. So we're shaped by all of our experiences as humans. When we go in, we're shaped. So everybody that comes into our office, they can't we cannot rely on a cultural framework to decide that that is how that person operates, because that's just simply not true. So, what can we actually do about this? So let me just say one thing first because I don't want us walking away thinking that frameworks are useless and that we need to bin them because they're not and and we shouldn't bin them. When they're used well, they're genuinely valuable. They give us a vocabulary for differences that we'd otherwise just experience as personal friction, and they tell us which dimensions are even worth watching. The problem is never that we don't have the knowledge, it's what we do with that knowledge. So I'm gonna give us four moves that we could start doing this week. Move one. Hold the framework as a hypothesis, not a conclusion. So this is a tiny change in wording that does a lot of work. This might be a difference in how directness gets read around here. That keeps you watching. It's a question you carry into the meeting, but this person will find direct feedback uncomfortable? That's already a conclusion. You've kind of skipped a step. We've stopped looking because we think we've already arrived. It's the same knowledge, but it's two completely different postures. One makes us curious and the other one makes us certain. Unfortunately, certainty on day one about a person that we've just met is actually not a great thing. Move two, just ask them. This is one of the most comically simple things that we can do, and it often gets missed. I've seen it so many times. Because people rely on that framework, it feels more sophisticated than a conversation. But most people can tell you quite happily how they like to receive feedback, whether they want the decision made in a meeting or afterwards, or how much notice they need before you put them on the spot. Five honest minutes at the start of a working relationship. How do you like to work? What gets the best out of you? What drives you up the wall? This kind of beats any country profile that ever gets written, and it costs us nothing except for the minutes to ask those questions. The guide is a description of a population, but the person standing right in front of us, that person is there, ready and available as a primary source. Move three, widen the list of explanations that we reach for. So when a colleague does something that puzzles us, culture is one possible reason. It sits on a list on a list alongside their workload, their role, their seniority, their personality, whether they slept well last night, and the entirely live possibility that they've been listening to us and they just don't have anything to say or to disagree with. Reaching for that kind of cultural explanation first can sometimes be a bad habit, and it's a habit that it's worth trying to kind of catch ourselves doing. Someone's quiet in a meeting before we conclude, oh that must be high power distance or um they're face saving or whatever we're we're assuming. We need to just kind of check whether they're quiet because they're new or they haven't been briefed, or because maybe we've been talking for the last 19 minutes and they haven't been able to get a word in, and now they just can't be bothered. Before we reach for the cultural explanation, we just need to have a quick look around and just ask ourselves is there another explanation that might be at play here? And then move for. Update fast and say it out loud. So when someone turns out not to match what we've expected, this is not that the framework is failing. The framework's probably doing its job really well. It's just that we're dealing with a real human and we've learned something very specific about that particular individual that's in front of us, and that is a win. And the way we bank that win is to kind of say it plainly, you know, I'd assume that you'd want more time to sit with this before making a decision. Tell me if I've got that wrong. You know, that sentence surfaces our assumptions instead of hiding them, it hands them the correction on a plate and it turns a private adjustment inside our head into a shared understanding between two people. We're not protecting the model anymore, we're updating it in the open with that person's help. And that's the exact opposite of the not typical reflex, and it's the move that stops the whole thing from hardening. So the fix. There's four moves. Hold the framework as a hypothesis, not a verdict. Ask people how they like to work, widen the explanations you reach for before you land on culture. And when someone surprises you, update fast and say it out loud. The frameworks earn their keep when they make you curious, they kind of cost us a little bit when they make us certain. So stay on the curious side of that line and you'll get the best of what they offer without letting them stand between you and the actual person. If this is a live issue for your team right now, that's exactly the kind of thing I work through one-to-one with leaders, through advisory, through coaching, and through workshops. You can find out more about the work that I do by visiting rennandomasquinn.com, and you can also find me on LinkedIn.