In this 1983 article, Indrei Ratiu describes how the “most international” managers consider both cultural and individual factors when interpreting their international colleagues’ behavior.
When working internationally, it is a good idea to study cultural patterns, but it is often even more important to pay close attention to the person in front of you right now so you can learn from the cues that this specific individual is sending you.
Ratiu was way ahead of his time in calling out the limitations of the cross-cultural lens for use in predicting the behavior of real people. While it obviously makes sense to respect cultural differences, excessive focus on differences can prevent you from noticing both individual differences and individual affinities that have little to do with culture.
The hypothesis (expectations) you bring plays a large role in shaping what you end up experiencing in your interactions with your international colleagues (as is true in all relationships and much of the rest of life). If your hypothesis is that the person in front of you has become who they are because of a set of generalizations, you’ll often experience evidence that those generalizations are valid. If your hypothesis is that the person in front of you has become who they are because of a unique combination of factors (culture being just one), you’ll often discover things about that person that can’t be captured in cross-cultural models.
Cross-cultural comparisons are a useful entry point for noticing that the person across from you might see the world differently from you. Still, when you adopt them as your default lens for interpreting the behavior of the person in front of you right now, you risk missing opportunities to develop authentic interpersonal affinities that bridge cultural gaps.
Many of the most successful salespeople and negotiators intuitively notice affinities and entrain upon them. When you are trying to influence someone, you build referent power by establishing an awareness of affinities rather than (or at least as well as) differences. In the context of cross-cultural leadership and communication, we seem to struggle to make space for this sort of genuine entrainment and affinity creation.
Below the surface, these are sometimes discussions about personal identity wearing a mask of cultural differences. It’s easier to define something (including a self) when you have something to contrast it with.
Still, as the old saying goes, “Like likes like.” If you pay attention to the person in front of you, you can almost always find something to like about them or a way that you are alike while also acknowledging and respecting the differences between you.
—
In this chart from the same article, Ratiu outlines the difference between starting with generalizations versus starting with the assumption that the generalizations are less important than the person in front of you.
One final note: I see the topic of cross-cultural leadership and communication as being different in important ways from other related topics such as systemic discrimination and unconscious bias. I absolutely believe that these are real problems that need to be addressed at the systemic and personal level. There is little doubt that we live in societies and work in companies in which not all people have access to the same opportunities and privileges, and research strongly implies that we ALL walk around with our own combination of unconscious biases. I believe we have a moral obligation to address these issues.
Even in the midst of this process, though, we will be more successful if we engage with the real people around us in ways that acknowledge the complex glory of who they are as individuals, rather than assuming we know something meaningful about them because of the culture, ethnicity or some other attribute that we associate with them.
Here’s the bibliographical information for the article:
Indrei Ratiu, “Thinking Internationally: A Comparison of How International Executives Learn“, International Studies of Management & Organization., Vol. XIII, N0o. 1-2, pp. 139-150, M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1983
—
Agency (主体性) + Purpose (志) + Growth (成長) + Connection (繋がり) + Contribution (貢献) = Meaning (意義)
© Dana Cogan, 2025, all rights reserved.