When assigned to lead the implementation of new client services at offshore locations in the Philippines and India, my effectiveness as a culturally competent leader was going to be tested. Cultural competency has been defined by some as “an individual’s core requirement for working effectively with culturally diverse people” (Alizadeh & Chavan, 2016, e117). As the leader of this project, I needed to design and execute a plan that prepared our U.S. teams to timely and effectually train the offshore teams for ownership and delivery of our new client services. Several times in the past, we’ve successfully trained third party vendors to own and deliver these services. Those assignments did not require much deviation from our own standard practices because their staffs were located in the U.S. and possessed experience in healthcare insurance services. This new assignment had significant differences in culture, “the learned beliefs, values, rules, norms, symbols, and traditions that are common to a group of people” (Northouse, 2018, p. 433), that required consideration in order to design and execute an optimal implementation plan. I wouldn’t understand how significant the differences were until the optimally designed plan began to unravel in real time with less than ideal outcomes. My ability to learn, consider, and support followers’ needs according to those differences would ultimately determine my cultural competency as a leader.

Leadership is Sometimes Universal. Often Times, It’s Not.

To ensure I was equipped to support and prepare my team for this project, I needed to first assess the leadership needs of the offshore teams. I consulted with the offshore leadership teams as a way to gain some insight into cultural considerations for training delivery as well as their teams’ leadership support needs. What became immediately clear is that there were commonalities in our views of ideal leadership characteristics, including the ability to be as honest as possible, be communicative, build trust with the team, convey positivity, be motivational, be decisive, display intelligence, and act fairly (PSU WC, 2021, L.13, P.6). According to the GLOBE project (Northouse, 2018), these qualities are considered universally desirable leadership attributes (p. 452). There were also some differences which would present hurdles in planning, like leadership that allows for a loose adherence to schedules, provides decisive direction for every possible scenario/consideration, and a close relationship with followers outside the work setting.  These latter leader practices differed greatly from most U.S. leadership norms we’ve practiced and, for this reason, require careful consideration in planning.

Understanding Dimensions of Culture While Respecting Everyone as Individuals

Before traveling to the offshore locations for their assignments, we required that our U.S. teams complete cultural sensitivity training which provided general cultural background and norms information about each of the countries. In addition, we conducted several pre-travel group work sessions with their offshore counterparts so that the U.S. teams established virtual working relationships with the offshore teams prior to arrival. The cultural sensitivity training indicated that the South Asian dimensions of culture held high regard for those in positions of power (high power distance), especially Caucasian leaders given the histories of colonization; were in-group collectivist in nature with deep rooted familial bonds; low gender egalitarianism with a strong reverence for the traditional patriarchal leadership structure; and low future orientation with little emphasis on time/schedule adherence (Northouse, 2018, pp. 438-439). However, it was cautioned that, while it is critical to understand the underlying cultural norms, everyone is an individual and their behavior may deviate from these norms as is the case in every culture.

After the cultural sensitivity training and work sessions, some U.S. team members were removed from the project because they expressed ethnocentric biases, “the tendency for individuals to place their own group (ethnic, racial, or cultural) at the center of their observations of others and the world” (Northouse, 2018), in assuming that the offshore teams were likely incapable of effectively delivering our training as compared to U.S. teams (p. 434). These views could also be related to a belief that the U.S. team should be dominant over the offshore teams, which is an example of social dominance orientation (PSU WC, 2021, L.13, P.8). More specifically, these U.S. team members were likely practicing in-group favoritism as a way, in their minds, to preserve their group status rather than share it with out-group members (PSU WC, 2021, L.13, P.8). Regardless of the intent, unfounded, biased attitudes are known to be destructive and have no place in culturally supportive leadership settings.

Realizing True Culturally Competent Leadership

With the cultural training, preparedness efforts, and the cultural research conducted prior to the project start, the implementation plan was confidently designed and the U.S. teams traveled to the offshore locations to began delivery of  the prescribed training with the offshore teams. It was developed to accommodate the cultural view of present time with a somewhat flexible time schedule, the cultural emphasis on in-group collectivism with a large number of group interactive learning activities and knowledge exchanges, the cultural respect for decisive direction from leaders with intricate work instructions for basic functions, as well as many other culturally supportive accommodations which were intended to increase the likelihood of the training’s success.  Yet, within the first weeks, the U.S. teams began to report disconnections in the training with the offshore teams. We immediately began to poll the offshore teams and their leaders for feedback to determine where the shortcomings in the training were. The main feedback indicated that the offshore teams did not feel a connection with the trainers, and did not necessarily trust the information being conveyed which translated to a lack of investment. In addition, while we may have felt there was a large amount of group based learning activities in the curriculum, the learners still felt isolated and disconnected from each other in the learning process.

According to Alizadeh & Chavan (2016), there are three components of cultural competence: cultural awareness, cultural knowledge and cultural skills (p. e126). What we came to understand is that our interpretation of the cultural training and research information was colored by our own cultural bias. Therefore, the plan itself was still culturally biased. Culturally competent leaders recognize their bias and preferences as a way to understand those of other cultures (Northouse, 2018, p. 456). Based on the feedback and at the suggestion of the offshore teams, we coordinated a work sanctioned daily lunch and a Friday post-work karaoke excursion with the trainers and classes as a way to build a bond between the leaders and followers. Culturally competent leaders take what they have learned and adapt their leadership style based on the needs/input from those in different cultural settings (Northouse, 2018, p. 456). Once we truly heard and took the time to really understand the leadership needs of the offshore teams, their performances immediately improved and any further bumps along the way were easily remedied through open communication avenues. As leaders become more adept in understanding cultural differences, they “become more empathic and accurate in their communication with others”(Northouse, 2018, p. 456). These are the signs of true culturally competent leadership. This is how my team and I evolved into culturally competent leaders.

_____________________________________

References

Alizadeh, S., & Chavan, M. (2016). Cultural competence dimensions and outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Health & Social Care in the Community, 24(6), e117-e130. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12293

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781506362298

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 13: Leadership and Diversity. Retrieved from: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/fa21/22181–16170/content/14_lesson/printlesson.html

As we gain experience as leaders, we eventually learn that not all leadership approaches are effective in every situation and/or with every team. I was quickly reminded of this when acting as an operational training manager in a company’s healthcare insurance services division. Before joining the company’s healthcare insurance services operational training division, my previous professional roles required that I leverage high directional and power-driven leadership styles based on the nature of each of those organizations’ goals. However, after trying and failing to successfully lead using the styles of the past, I came to learn that a completely different leadership model was necessary to effectively support the operational training team and the goals of the company’s operational training division; one that demonstrated a willingness to serve the needs of the followers and, in turn, the organization.

Leadership Is Not One-Size-Fits-All

Based on my expertise and previous performance in another operational area of the organization, I was tasked with optimizing and innovating this division’s operational practices. I realized objectives like these in my previous position with a power-driven leadership mindset and the intent to achieve improved team performance with goals based on metrics. I went into the operational training manager position thinking that taking a similar leadership approach with the operational training team, through the definition and direction of training-related performance metric goals, would result in improved team performance as well as the optimization and innovation of division operations.  After the first quarterly performance review results showed a decline in performance for nearly all employees, it was evident the team was not motivated by the performance metric goals defined by their leaders and me. I had to correct course as, if this continued, I risked failing to achieve division goals, fulfill the purpose for which I was hired, and, most importantly, meet the needs of my followers.

Determining Followers’ Needs

The healthcare insurance services operational training division employed some of the company’s most tenured healthcare insurance services subject matter experts (SMEs) who had established strong and varied professional relationships with hundreds of resources across the organization. This division was known for its wealth of knowledge, trusted training consultation recommendations, exceedingly compliant internal & external audit outcomes, high quality training performance results as well as their inefficient/outmoded training deliveries and scheduling delay issues. While the division’s goals, as well as mine, were designed to close the known gap in its operational practices, the identified path for reaching those goals had resonate with the followers tasked with carrying out the work. Clearly, performance metrics were not connecting the operational training team to the division’s goals. After meeting with the team as a group, individually, and reviewing the feedback from anonymous survey results, it was clear the team was unhappy with the leadership team and the original goals because the team had not been consulted before they were set. In addition, it was clear the team sought a voice in their own goal setting, desired individually designed goals based on professional development aspirations, and wanted some level of autonomy to own the decisions and outcomes of their goal-related work. The best way to address the issues raised was a change in leadership style.

Some Followers Need a Servant Leader

The tenets of servant leadership seemed to best fit the needs of the team. According to Northouse (2018), the main servant leadership ideas are that “servant leaders place the good of followers over their own self-interests and emphasize follower development (Hale & Fields, 2007). They demonstrate strong moral behavior toward followers (Graham, 1991; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010), the organization, and other stakeholders (Ehrhart, 2004)” (p. 228). After meeting with my director to discuss and gaining approval for my goal correction and new leadership approach plan, I acknowledged the feedback from the team and took responsibility for failing to consider their point of view/unique needs when establishing performance goals. While the division goals would be determined by the director and their performance goals would have to support the fulfillment of those pre-determined division goals, I made a commitment to the team which reassured, moving forward, that they would have collaborative input in their own goal setting process, performance goals configured to support individual professional development preferences, and more opportunity to own decision making in their goal-related work. Moreover, I conveyed the leadership approach change that would see a closer, more collaborative relationship between supervisor & employee as well as myself and all members of the team to establish/maintain a unified communication connection within the division. In the servant leadership model, listening to the team’s feedback, empathizing with their point of view, taking responsibility for leadership failures so the team could heal, demonstrating a commitment to the growth of the team through individualized professional development, and building a community amongst all members of the division through connection are all considered characteristics of a servant leader (Northouse, 2018, p. 229).

Serving Followers’ Can Lead to Better Outcomes

Following through on the promises made, I met weekly with the team for lunch to gain feedback, the supervisors reset and redesigned the team’s quarterly goals with team input, and each team member was designated the lead on quarterly projects which would be leveraged as part of their goal reviews. By year’s end, the division, as well as nearly all team members, had effectively and successfully achieved our individual and shared goals. The division’s culture had also changed from one of dissatisfaction with leadership to that of a unified, collaborative community. This result aligns with Kiker, Scully Callahan, & Kiker’s (2019) findings that, in individualist cultures such as the U.S., servant leadership resulted in higher job performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (p. 192). Kiker et al. (2019) also indicate that servant leadership “facilitates the twin goals of productivity and enhanced follower attitudes through the use of a single leadership approach” (p. 193). Based on this, the division’s positive organizational performance outcome was likely the product of the leaders serving the needs of the followers in this situation.

____________________________________________________________________________________

References

Kiker, D. S., Scully Callahan, J., & Kiker, M. B. (2019). Exploring the Boundaries of Servant Leadership: A Meta-Analysis of the Main and Moderating Effects of Servant Leadership on Behavioral and Affective Outcomes. Journal of Managerial Issues, 31(2), 172–197. http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=137336121&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781506362298

In 2017, the company I worked for was acquired by a larger global Fortune 500 company. We went from a 2,500 employee organization to a company with over 280,000 employees. It is an understatement to say our division experienced a culture shock. We managed the operational training for the organization specializing in business process operations (BPO). This was the specific business function for which our company was acquired. We were now tasked with determining how to effectively merge with, train, and lead the other global operational training locations within the company.

Shared Team Leadership

In this large company with locations spread across several continents, including the Philippines and India, there were several operational training leaders with teams who were joining our division and needed to operate autonomously in order to function in an optimized manner. We had to determine the most effective way to collectively translate our BPO industry leading training model across a culturally diverse global organization. It is critical to note that a number of these new locations were rooted in traditionally collectivist cultures which often places great value in group identity, comparisons, and norms (Jetten, Postmes, & McAuliffe, 2002, p. 190) For that reason, I, the other operational training managers, and our operational training leader, the Director who is responsible for all global BPO operational training divisions, decided to implement a shared team leadership model. According to Northouse (2018), a formal designated leader and/or any team member may perform the duties of the leader and, in this model, “members of the team take on leadership behaviors to influence the team and to maximize team effectiveness (Bergman, Rentsch, Small, Davenport, & Bergman, 2012)” (p. 373).

Effective Global Team Leadership

The Director implemented a set of universal operational and communications-related policies and procedures applicable to all company locations. It was the responsibility of all the location leaders and teams to operate according to, make decisions based upon, and collaborate aligning with those directives, similar to The Hill Model for Team Leadership (Northouse, 2018, p. 374), with the Director and designated leaders only intervening if corrective coaching or positive reinforcement recognitions warranted. While there were some initial struggles during initial implementation related to cultural difference acclimations and some resistance to change in all locations, the use of close and frequent online, video, and telephonic communications tools, as part of the larger universal communications policies and procedures, effectively overcame those hurdles. One example of an extremely effective communications procedure was the weekly scheduled Zoom video meetings between high performing peer mentors and lower performing peers across global locations which resulted in bonding the teams members between locations and more productive collaborations. The Director also required these weekly video meetings between the managers of all locations which created similar bonds between the location leaders and resulted operational optimizations with the rapid identification/resolution of operational issues.

Global Operations Leadership Model

Our division’s rapid global expansion was successful because our leader was willing to listen to our input, trust our judgement and in our capabilities as leaders, and step in to guide when the situation required. Not all leaders could/would have been willing to risk the possible failure or relinquish the level of control necessary to implement an effective team leadership model. When facilitated and influenced by capable leader, effective team leadership translates into improved team relationships and creativity (Ali, Wang, & Johnson, 2020, pp. 416-417). In this situation, our shared team leadership model was so effective, as influenced and facilitated by the director with the assistance of the managers, that the company ultimately replicated it across the organization in divisions that experienced similar multiple global location expansions. This is what effective global team leadership is.

_______________________

References

Ali, A., Wang, H., & Johnson, R. E. (2020). Empirical analysis of shared leadership promotion and team creativity: An adaptive leadership perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(5), 405-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2437

Jetten, J., Postmes, T. and McAuliffe, B.J. (2002). ‘We’re all individuals’: group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 32: 189-207. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1002/ejsp.65

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781506362298