Whenever we work with a group of people, we are working with culture. I like the simple definition of culture as “the way we do things around here”. It captures how culture shapes not just what we do, but the values, behaviours and assumptions we often take for granted. Sometimes cultural differences are obvious: people from different countries, speaking different first languages and bringing different experiences. At other times, they are less visible. Organisations, professions, teams, families and social groups all develop their own cultures and ideas about what is normal. Understanding culture matters if we want to unlock a group’s collective intelligence. But there are two catches for a Collective Intelligence Catalyst working in a multicultural context. First, the more we learn about cultural differences, the easier it can become to make assumptions about people. Second, what might we be missing if we assume everyone in the room sees the world as we do?

Culture gives us clues, not answers

Philippe Rosinski’s Cultural Orientations Framework offers a useful way of exploring cultural differences. It identifies dimensions along which people and cultures may differ, including approaches to power, time, communication, identity, boundaries and organising ourselves as groups. Rather than treating these differences as fixed categories, I find it useful to think of them as positions along a scale. We are all somewhere on these scales, and where we sit may vary according to the context. National culture may influence our values and behaviours, but so may our organisation, profession, family, generation and personal experiences. I might be comfortable challenging authority in one setting and much less so in another. Culture influences us, but it does not define us.

Look beyond behaviour

For the Collective Intelligence Catalyst, the question is not where someone ought to sit on a cultural parameter, but what is happening for this person, in this group, in this context. Imagine someone who rarely challenges the most senior person in the room. We might interpret this as respect for hierarchy. Perhaps it is. But perhaps they are still thinking, feel uncomfortable speaking in the group, are working in a second language, or have learnt that challenging senior people gets them nowhere. Or perhaps they simply agree. We can observe the behaviour, but we cannot automatically know the values, intentions or experiences behind it. Two people may display the same behaviour for very different reasons. Equally, two people may share a value but express it through very different behaviours. If we move too quickly from observing behaviour to deciding what it means, cultural awareness can reinforce the very assumptions it should help us question. The challenge is to remain curious: to explore what matters to people rather than assume we already know.

MAP. BRIDGE. INTEGRATE.

This is where the Map–Bridge–Integrate (MBI) model, developed by Joseph DiStefano and Martha L. Maznevski, offers a practical way forward: helping us explore differences, build understanding and use different perspectives to create new possibilities.

• MAP – Understand the differences. Listen, ask questions and explore what matters to others, without needing to agree with their perspective.
• BRIDGE – Build understanding. How can we understand another person’s perspective, including what matters to them, without necessarily agreeing with it? This means asking questions, listening and finding common ground while respecting genuinely irreducible differences.
• INTEGRATE – Use the differences. Bring perspectives together to create ideas and possibilities that go beyond any one person’s starting point and build together a new way of dealing with each other.

LEAF in a multicultural context: risks and opportunities

The LEAF methodology is designed to unlock the thinking in a group and make it available to everyone. Yet people have different ideas about what good participation looks like. Some challenge ideas readily; others think before speaking. Some think aloud; others need time to reflect. Some disagree directly, while others communicate disagreement less explicitly. These differences may reflect culture, personality, experience or context. The Catalyst’s task is not to make everyone participate in the same way, but to ensure the process does not favour one style of thinking or communicating. If the loudest, quickest or most direct voices shape the conversation, valuable thinking may remain unheard.

Bringing MBI and LEAF together

Rosinski’s framework helps us recognise where differences may exist; MBI helps us map, bridge and integrate them; and LEAF provides a structured process for turning different perspectives into better ideas and decisions.

The Catalyst’s secret weapon is good questions. Both MBI and LEAF use questions to open up thinking, explore perspectives and move discussion forward. A well-chosen question can uncover an assumption, make space for a voice that has not been heard, or help a group move beyond competing positions towards a new possibility. With the MBI framework in mind, the Catalyst can activate the corresponding questions at any point in the LEAF process.

But the questions should not only be directed at the group. As Catalysts, we also need to examine our own assumptions. We do not arrive culturally neutral. Our values and experiences influence what we notice and what we regard as good participation. Perhaps we value direct communication, feel comfortable challenging authority, or assume energetic discussion means people are engaged. Perhaps silence makes us uncomfortable, so we rush to fill it. We may regard these behaviours as simply good facilitation. But what if they reflect our own preferences rather than what the group needs? Alongside asking questions that open up the group’s thinking, we need to ask ourselves: What am I assuming? What am I treating as normal? Whose way of thinking or communicating might I be inadvertently favouring?

Our one-page Multicultural Facilitation Tool offers sample questions for exploring differences and building understanding, alongside prompts to help Catalysts reflect on their own assumptions and biases.

Culture matters – and so does curiosity

We do not need to become experts in every culture represented in a group. Cultural frameworks can help us recognise where differences may exist, but they cannot tell us what an individual values, why they behave as they do, or who they are. For a Collective Intelligence Catalyst, the starting point is not “I understand your culture”, but “I know there may be something here I don’t yet understand. Let me find out.” That curiosity needs to extend both outwards, towards the group, and inwards, towards our own assumptions. By asking better questions of others and ourselves, we can help turn cultural differences into a source of collective intelligence rather than a barrier to it.

– DiStefano, J. J. and Maznevski, M. L. (2000). “Creating Value with Diverse Teams in Global Management.” Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00012-7

– Rosinski, P. (2003). Coaching Across Cultures: New Tools for Leveraging National, Corporate & Professional Differences. Nicholas Brealey Publishing