Shelley Reinhart: 0:01

Unlocking Cultural Agility Podcast. We are so excited about this episode because we're going to explore the 12 dimensions of culture which is found in our cultural mapping inventory assessment, and the cultural mapping inventory assessment is a very important piece of our KnowledgeWorks intercultural intelligence framework. And so today is an exciting episode because we are basically going to unpack for you this very important piece of our framework what the 12 dimensions are, and give examples and really explore them in detail. So thrilled to be here today with Marco, our international director Wonderful Thanks. Thanks for coming on again, marco.

Marco Blankenburgh: 0:52

Yeah, great topic to be unpacking.

Shelley Reinhart: 0:55

Yes.

Marco Blankenburgh: 0:56

I don't know if we actually have enough time in one episode, but I know.

Shelley Reinhart: 1:01

Like, we have 12 and we have a certain number of minutes, but it's going to be great to explore all of them, so let's just go ahead and get started. And, marco, the first question I'd love to ask you is where did the 12 dimensions come from? How did they even come to be?

Marco Blankenburgh: 1:31

Yeah, in 2000, we pulled a team together in Dubai and we started to look at the world of intercultural and we initially started ordering a whole bunch of books from, in those days, intercultural press. And the more books we ordered, the more we realized that all those books were really talking about one nationality versus another nationality. Or if the books came from North America, it was, you know, one racial affiliation versus another racial affiliation. When we were living in, even in those days already, one of the most international intercultural cities in the world, dubai, and we realized a lot of the things that people are saying in those books are not necessarily always true and sometimes can even backfire on you, because the average German, the average Brazilian, the average Saudi doesn't really exist.

Marco Blankenburgh: 2:24

So we then said, okay, is there potentially another way to deal with this? And that's where we landed on this idea that what if we start to treat every human being as a uniquely wired cultural human being? What if each one of us is unique culturally because of the journey we've gone, the places we've lived, the things we've been exposed to, etc. And although that wasn't in and of itself a new idea, because in the world of psychology that has been done for years, since the 70s, you have sort of universally applicable frameworks like Myers-Briggs or DISC or StrengthsFinders etc. And based on those universal frameworks, assessments or questionnaires are created and those result in a personalized report. So we said could we potentially do something similar in the world of culture? Do something similar in the world of culture and that's where our three colors of worldview came from.

Marco Blankenburgh: 3:29

yes, and the 12 dimensions really build on the three colors of worldview. In trying to answer the question, who am I as a cultural human being? And that's where the cultural mapping inventory came from. Now, it wasn't built't built, you know, out from scratch. Really, in some ways it was.

Marco Blankenburgh: 3:47

But what we did was we looked at all the possible polarities that were accessible in the world of culture and at that point in time, in late 2000, early 2001,. There were roughly 21 opposites that were documented in academia, and you need to think about people like Edward T Hall and GJ Hofstede and von Strompenhuis. Those were the main voices at that time and there were a few others, but in total there were 21 opposites that we could find in academic writing and in available paper assessments in those days. And we then said, well, if I want to answer the question, who am I as a cultural human being, what set of polarities do we want? And that started a long weeks and weeks of discussion, pulling them apart and consolidating them and pulling them apart again and restructuring them, and that's how we eventually landed on these 12., believing that if you have these 12 and if your personal cultural preferences are measured on these 12, you create a rich and quite comprehensive picture so that you can answer that question who am I as a cultural human being?

Shelley Reinhart: 5:13

Yes. So why develop this tool to only focus on personal cultural preferences? Personal cultural preferences why that focus?

Marco Blankenburgh: 5:27

Yeah, that was in those days. It was a radical choice, let me put it that way.

Marco Blankenburgh: 5:32

This idea. You know I'm Dutch and so happens to be that Hofstede was Dutch and Trompenaars is Dutch, so they did brilliant work, hofstede in the 80s and Trompenaerts in the 90s, and still today, he's still very active. Really, they were the first people, together with Hall, in the 60s 70s, to say well, cultures are unique and we need to learn to quantify in which way cultures are unique. And we need a learn to quantify in which way cultures are unique and we need a language for that. That's where the idea of opposites came from, and we took that same idea into the culture mapping, inventory, the 12 dimensions, but they all focused on national culture, understanding national culture yes.

Marco Blankenburgh: 6:21

And there is, of course, generalizations to be made that are to some extent helpful, but we were starting our journey in the truly intercultural fabric of a place like Dubai.

Marco Blankenburgh: 6:41

And we felt, okay, now we could jump on the bandwagon with everybody else and we could say well, these tools are going to be used to create averages for every nationality that we have on our database. But we said wait a minute, where's the world going? What's the world becoming? And even then we felt the world is going to become more and more intercultural. People are going to be moving more and more, and we didn't know at that time, for instance, that, as we are recording, we have over 120 million displaced people in the world.

Marco Blankenburgh: 7:15

We have roughly 300 million third cultural kids or cross-cultural kids. We have 300 million, million plus people, close to 300 million people that are not living in the country of their passport, etc. So it what we felt in 2001 has become true even faster than we thought. So the world has become super intercultural. People are either now virtually relocating, as in they live in one, but they work for a company or an organization in another part of the world, their colleagues are from everywhere.

Marco Blankenburgh: 7:53

They might virtually be collaborating or they literally relocate. So talent is on right around the world. Talent is on the move. The world talent is on the move. So we we've said that that time we want to develop tools that don't look at national averages on cultural preference. We want to develop tools that help an individual understand who they are as as a cultural human being, in the same way as you do in the world of psychology, where you have a personality test or things like that. And we, we also believe that if you know how to do that for yourself and you learn how to do that on the fly with other people, the magic starts to happen yes, so the ability to build cultural bridges between two human beings exponentially increases.

Marco Blankenburgh: 8:46

The other thing we found was that as we started to apply these tools, we realized people are relying less on stereotypes and preconceived ideas about oh I'm talking to an American, oh, I'm talking to an Argentinian that idea that the average Argentinian exists and once I find out that that's the country somebody came from, it can really throw me off in terms of how I engage in the conversation, how I think about the person in front of me. So we found that brain tendency to put somebody in a box. Be done with the questions you know. Say, oh, I already know who you are as a cultural human being. When we use these tools, that gets diminished.

Shelley Reinhart: 9:43

Yes, I mean, it's Marco. I've heard you describe this so many times and every time I still think to myself this is pretty radical. I mean, we've been doing this at KnowledgeWorks for what? 20 plus years, but still I'm just like, yes, this is unusual, this isn't the way the majority of the world goes about others, but still I'm just like, yes, this, this is unusual, this isn't the way the majority of the world goes about you know, yeah, and it is a bit.

Marco Blankenburgh: 10:13

It is a bit harder in the beginning because all of a sudden you can't rely on oh, you're German. Oh, now I know.

Shelley Reinhart: 10:21

Yeah.

Marco Blankenburgh: 10:22

Oh, you're South Korean, you know now I know you. Yeah, oh, you're South Korean, you know now I know everything about you. So it is harder at the beginning, but it is so much richer and more accurate as well, because you know, if I know your personal cultural preferences and I have a language to talk about it, the chance that we will connect as cultural human beings is increased significantly. And you know, relying less on the outside rapper is beneficial for the relationship. You know definitely.

Shelley Reinhart: 10:56

Yes, the saying in English, you know, you can't judge a book by its cover is very much true for us as cultural human beings I mean, and this has also given me a tool for some very powerful self-reflection, so understanding others, but truly understanding myself as well as a cultural human being, um and that. That's also the goal. Yeah, I mean understanding yourself and others and building those cultural bridges. Yeah, that's why I love this tool yeah.

Marco Blankenburgh: 11:31

Very much an inside-out approach.

Shelley Reinhart: 11:33

Inside-out. So it starts with yourself.

Marco Blankenburgh: 11:35

Yeah, explore who you are, embrace who you are as a cultural human being, and then use that same approach to try and understand other people, and then build the bridge or develop the culture. Yes, make the sale service people in your ngo yeah yeah, I've seen it happen.

Shelley Reinhart: 11:58

I've seen as we unpack this report with so many people it it's it's amazing to watch it in action. So we sort of talked about how this is different from the voices that have come before. Um, and you landed on 12. You said there was 21. That was sort of out there in the literature. 12 is a lot, so give me a reason for 12. Yeah, why is that?

Marco Blankenburgh: 12:25

We went back and forth and we fought the 12 and trying to condense it, and every time we went back to the question does this comprehensively describe who I am as a cultural human being? I am as a cultural human being or if I need to face, if I need to deal with an intercultural dilemma and I'm called in to try and help people understand why did this happen with? How did we end up in this place and how do can we unravel or move forward in a constructive way. Every time we tried to condense things, we found out there's something missing, there is a nuance in the dimensions that we need to have. So, for instance, to give you an example, there's multiple ways in intercultural theory to think about hierarchy.

Marco Blankenburgh: 13:23

Okay, so power distance is one way that people are talking about it. But when we, when we try to consolidate hierarchical thinking versus non-hierarchical thinking into only one dimension, we felt it was, it was not, uh, fine-tuned enough. Only one dimension, we felt it was, it was not fine tuned enough Because hierarchy can be a complex thing to understand and how it works and how it functions in an organization. So, so we said, okay, well, let's break it apart. So we actually ended up with three different dimensions that deal with hierarchy in some way or another, and I think that was really helpful for people to have. Instead of only being able to talk about power distance, they could now talk about things like directed versus directive destiny, where it's like you know, am I controlling my destiny? Am I allowed to be in charge of that and forge that, or is my boss or the organization in charge of that? Who is allowed to be part of the conversation is also part of power distance.

Marco Blankenburgh: 14:35

So am I just telling everybody yeah, just join, let's talk? Or in terms of sharing of information. So that's another part of power distance, and the third part has to do with with status. So how do you become somebody of significance in that organization? Is it because of hard work and merit, and then you get rewarded? Or is it because of other reasons? It could be your upbringing in a particular family or a particular tribe, or your affiliation to an organization that has nothing to do with the company you work for, or your level of degree or your number of years of service. How you become somebody of significance, who is allowed to be part of the conversation and who is not, and who controls my destiny? Those three combined are all talking about power distance in some way or another, but having the three of them, the conversation a lot richer and more fine-tuned and three-dimensional, so to speak.

Marco Blankenburgh: 15:44

Yes, yeah, but it is hard to wrap your head around 12 dimensions initially, but we are. Once people get it and they start to apply it, I've never had people come back. I still wish there were less than 12 no, never say yeah, if we, yeah, if we cut this one out, yeah yeah, then you't talk about, for instance, how we see the future, then we can't talk about how decisions are made and how exceptions might be created or never be created. So yeah, people always come back to 12.

Shelley Reinhart: 16:21

12 is a nice round number. It does, yes, of the 21,. We're glad you narrowed it down to 12. 12 is a nice round number. It does, yes, of the 21, we we're glad you narrowed it down to 12. So I think I love, I really enjoy them all and and and actually, can you just give us a brief description? How are they structured? So you know, on on the cultural mapping inventory, how is it structured and what is a polarity? Can you go through that?

Marco Blankenburgh: 16:46

yes, yeah, that's really important. So, um, each polarity has a name and, uh, you will find links to uh sort of uh, some, uh, some online materials that visualize it, so you can, you can reference it in that way. But, um, we talk about polarities because they are opposites, and I've already mentioned a few now. So, uh, for instance, when you think about, um, an opposite, like one of the ones we is to do with, how people make decisions, so there's a name for each polarity and in this, this case, it would be decision making. How do people handle decision making?

Marco Blankenburgh: 17:30

And the one side of the polarity has to do with rules. So I make decisions based on the policy, the procedure, the contract, the rules of the land, and those are the. That's the only thing that guides me. Or I make decisions based on the relationship, the person or persons involved in the process, and those are then two opposites. So extreme, so to speak, relationship-based decision-making would look who's involved in the conversation and how does that shape the way we're gonna make decisions. The rules might apply, or we might make exceptions to the rules because the relationship is more important.

Marco Blankenburgh: 18:13

The other side of the polarity, then, would be the other extreme is that exclusively making decisions based on the rules, the contract, the policy, the law of the land, and that is that's why we call them polarities. So a polarity is technically a continua, so you're never only on the left or only on the right. You could be on multiple preference points. Actually, in our tool there are seven preference points, so you could be strong on the left, strong on the right, intermediate left right, mild left right and in the middle. So in total there are seven different points. So every dimension has a name and it has words to describe the opposites.

Shelley Reinhart: 18:59

Okay, ah, that's helpful, okay. So what I'd love to do right now is I'd love to walk through all 12. And I'd love for you to give a short example of how each dimension plays out in real life. So you've done that a little bit with some of them, but could we methodically go through each 12 with examples?

Marco Blankenburgh: 19:22

All right, let's do it, let's do it do it great all right, I'll follow the order that people would find in the report or in the online public doc articles that we've written about the tool so perfect. The first one in the tool is called growth and that has to do with how you allocate resources when you think about growth. So what is good growth in our organization or on our team? Is good growth mainly focused on investing in my people and making sure that my people are skilled, that they have good relationships, that they that they have fun together, etc. Or is growth mainly achieved through good structure, good systems, great offers, flow, for instance, all kinds of things related to technology and computer systems, etc. And the growth dimension often plays out in in budget discussions. Yes, okay, you will see very, very quickly how people oriented people are when they think about growth, or how what we call material or systems oriented people are when it comes to growth in terms of how they fight for budget, what are they fighting for and why is that important for them? So, uh, yeah, that's the first one, and um, it's not only in in how budget is allocated.

Marco Blankenburgh: 21:00

If I give you an example um, in the world of technology, um, one of the biggest challenges in some parts of the world has to do with user adoption. So in other words, you put big money into a new it system and then you hit play, so to speak. It goes, but are people truly going to embrace the new system and use it on a day to day basis? And some cultures say well, we've invested in this very expensive IT infrastructure, so obviously people are going to jump on it and they're going to use it. But then from a cultural point of view, if you don't invest both on the material side of growth as well as the personal, the people side of growth, then I've seen systems like that just become dinosaurs because people did not create user adoption processes that were needed in that cultural context that's a great example.

Shelley Reinhart: 22:03

Okay, that is very helpful. So that's the first one growth next one.

Marco Blankenburgh: 22:10

The next one has to do with relationships. How do I view relationships? And we talk about, on the one hand, universal relationships, the other hand, situational. So if somebody is more situational in the way they view relationships, it's work. Relationships are work. And when I close the door or when I close my computer and finish work, I have other relationships. So I have friends and family. I have yet other relationships related to hobbies, sports or recreation, relationships related to hobbies, sports or recreation. I might have other relationships related to spirituality and my life of faith, etc. Etc. So situational relationship, it's sliced, the world is sliced in segments of.

Marco Blankenburgh: 22:59

If you are more Universal, though, then what that means is I meet you at work, and I might be a little bit slow in connecting, because I want to take this connection beyond work. I want to be your friend, I want to hang out with you. I want to probably we'll hang out if we have families we might hang out as families beyond work, and that universal way of thinking about relationships is much more encompassing, and it spills over from one sphere of your life to the next, to the next to the next.

Shelley Reinhart: 23:36

Yes.

Marco Blankenburgh: 23:37

And that's a very interesting one, because certain cultures are very strong in saying no work is work you yes connect with colleagues and you don't even have to like your colleagues. You don't have to be friends with your colleagues, have one or two friends at work, but you're there to do work.

Marco Blankenburgh: 24:03

So you're there to accomplish a task, um, on the universal side of relationship, that that wouldn't happen. I I had a friend who said I. I asked him to describe work and he said to me well, I go to work to be with my friends, but we also accomplish amazing things, wow.

Shelley Reinhart: 24:28

That's a. That's a a classical.

Marco Blankenburgh: 24:29

That's a classic example of a universal way of looking at relationships.

Shelley Reinhart: 24:35

Yeah, yeah, that's a distinct difference. I can see that. I can see why that dimension is needed. That's good, good clarity. Um, what about the next one, which is outlook?

Marco Blankenburgh: 24:49

Yeah, so with Outlook we are looking into the future. So both sides of the polarity look into the future, but what they consider important is what determines if people are on the left or the right of this dimension. So the left word we use is called a tradition-oriented outlook versus a innovation-oriented outlook so somebody who has a tradition-oriented outlook and is looking into the future will take the a large chunk of the past into consideration, and when I say a large chunk, it could be a hundred years, depending on the topic it could be.

Marco Blankenburgh: 25:32

It could be generations of history of tradition that needs to either be protected or nurtured or respected, even if you take a slightly different direction. But all of that is considered as we make decisions about the future. So, respecting those who've gone before us, respecting tradition that has been established, that is still valuable, even to the point where sometimes the tradition stays, even if it's debatable, if it's valuable which is, by the way, a tradition-oriented outlook person might not even think that way Innovation-oriented outlook. The other side of the equation is very much focused on today or maybe not even today, just tomorrow what we can do in the future together In the future.

Marco Blankenburgh: 26:26

So yeah, so if somebody like that presents their ideas to you, they will not consider the past. They might not even think about today. They might purely say I've been doing some thinking, and what if, two years from now, we could? And that's when they start to potentially sell you on a new idea that they have. And culturally, both are equally important, especially if you have a multicultural team or if you have an organization that spans across multiple geographies. You typically end up being in cultures and have talent from cultures that are both tradition oriented and innovation oriented in their outlook, and have talent from cultures that are both tradition-oriented and innovation-oriented in their outlook, and that's why that's true.

Shelley Reinhart: 27:18

With all of these dimensions, learning to navigate them in an interculturally agile ways is super important and just at our international Summit I watched you sort of walk a married couple, a new married couple, through this dimension and how it impacted their marriage and the way they interacted together. The wife was traditional, traditional on the polarity, she was more tradition and the husband was more innovation. Can you just quickly summarize sort of that, how that played out? It's so personal it was. It was fascinating.

Marco Blankenburgh: 27:57

It was, uh, yeah, it was a beautiful conversation, um, and at coaching into that dimension was really precious for them and I learned a lot from oh, but it basically meant that, um, the husband, me being more innovation oriented in their outlook, uh, they were willing. He was willing to just not just try a lot more new things, he was assuming that the next time we have to do it different yes uh, because that's fun, that's fun that that is uh, you know, exciting yeah she was saying exactly the opposite.

Marco Blankenburgh: 28:35

She was saying well, the next time we do something, if we have already done it before, the best thing we can do is to do it the same way and improve on it. And for her that was fun and energizing.

Shelley Reinhart: 28:49

Yes.

Shelley Reinhart: 28:50

So both set on the opposite side of the polarity, but what they called fun, or what they considered energizing, was draining for the other party and so it was a beautiful, beautiful conversation to explore that and how they could create culture together just around that one dimension yes, and it was a way for them to talk about it in a way that they possibly couldn't have sort of explored it before giving them language to talk about this very significant difference between the two of them yeah, and you raise a good point, because that's one thing that this tool does really well it gives you a neutral language and it gives you words to articulate something like you say that is sometimes really hard to put your finger on yeah, so yeah and I.

Marco Blankenburgh: 29:44

we saw that in in that particular example that having the language, having a neutral language that is not condemning or criticizing, it just is. Just is Keeps the conversation. Yeah, it just keeps the conversation going and it it allowed them to explore. Okay, how do we now move forward together? How do we create our own cultural space in this?

Shelley Reinhart: 30:08

marriage relationship and the marriage yes, and one way is not better than the other. And that discussion was clear. Yeah, it was. Yeah, it's just super important with the dimensions.

Marco Blankenburgh: 30:21

There isn't a better place to be. So it just is. If you show up at a certain preference point on any of these 12, it just is yes I'm learning to embrace that and learning to say, okay, this is where I am, this is where you are. How can we find each other? Or how do I need to learn to stretch away from, maybe from my preference point of what might that look like? And a lot of the report is is dedicated to stretching.

Shelley Reinhart: 30:50

Learning to build bridges, cultural bridges yes, and you could see, with this married couple, they wanted to stretch. They wanted to stretch into their spouse's polarity to help build the relationship. It was beautiful.

Marco Blankenburgh: 31:05

Yeah, it was great love is the greatest equator very true, they were very newly married.

Shelley Reinhart: 31:11

It was. It was beautiful to watch. The next dimension is the one I find so fascinating. It's my favorite, to be honest, and it's destiny. So can you explain the dimension of destiny?

Marco Blankenburgh: 31:25

Yeah, so destiny has two words on the polarity.

Marco Blankenburgh: 31:29

So when it's called directed destiny and that has to do with typically other people or external factors being in control of my destiny and the directive side, which is the other side, is where I take charge or I assume I can take charge of my future, of my direction, which also typically means that people who are directive destiny oriented, they want to vocalize their opinion, they want to be part of decision making, and they they typically might get frustrated or upset if they're not invited to be part of the conversation.

Marco Blankenburgh: 32:11

Directed destiny environments people are much more focused on doing a great job, doing what is required, and they expect that those instructions, those details, will come from their supervisor, from their boss, and the interesting thing is, both directed and directive destiny environments can be incredibly productive. What I have found, though, is that directive destiny people believe that if I choose my direction, I think it through, I wrestle with it and I land on the direction I want to go. They think that because of that, they have more longevity and resilience and they will produce better results. And what the research actually shows is that directed destiny environments can be equally productive and sometimes even have more resilience and not more longevity produce higher performance results and the key there is the trust between the person who receives the instruction and the person who gives the instruction.

Marco Blankenburgh: 33:35

If there is a high level of trust between them, then directed destiny can outperform, for instance, directive destiny oh, that's so fascinating.

Shelley Reinhart: 33:45

Oh, my goodness, do you have an example, like an example of how it plays out sort of in real life, anything recently that you've seen?

Marco Blankenburgh: 33:54

yeah, there's so many, there's so many examples. So, for instance, um, we worked with a client where, uh, they were revamping globally, they were revamping their employee development program and this dimension was at the center of a challenge that they faced. So the the employee development program, sort of, was designed by very directive, destiny-oriented people and they made the assumption if, when it comes to your personal development, you have to do your own thinking, you have to come up with ideas, plan it yourself.

Marco Blankenburgh: 34:36

Plan it yourself. You have to go to your manager the word proactive was used a lot and you go and say boss, this is what I want to do with the rest of this year. I know there is budget available for my development. I would like it to be invested in the following way um, what they didn't realize is that a lot of the world's population, including the people working in their company, they, don't operate that way.

Marco Blankenburgh: 35:02

The rest of you know there's a large percentage of the world population who is much more directed destiny oriented. So I defer to my boss when it comes to my career, my development as a professional, and I respect the the fact that my boss has been in the business longer in the organization I I will accept their wise counsel and when it comes to the next steps that I need to take in my career and it would be seen as disrespectful for me to go to my boss if there is more of a directed destiny culture and say here's what I want to do. I've been doing some thinking as opposed to typically happen Destiny you go to your boss and say I've really enjoyed working with you, for you and I would love to get your insight and advice. You've seen me in this last year at work. What would you recommend me? What my next step should?

Marco Blankenburgh: 36:03

be that's a typical directed destiny way of dealing with it.

Marco Blankenburgh: 36:07

So, in other words, they rolled out this global initiative, assuming everybody in the world was destiny-oriented and then we had to make lots of tweaks and fortunately it was flagged relatively early and there was enough breathing space in the way they rolled it out to make the tweaks to be more respectful of cultural contexts that were more directed, destiny-oriented, directed, destiny oriented. And also a great example learning to appreciate that is not a lesser way of of connecting with uh, between a uh, a subordinate and and a leader, for instance it is just another way it's just another way.

Shelley Reinhart: 36:49

Yes, oh, that's so important to recognize and structure things around both polarities. Yeah, I love that. I love that one. I've seen that play out in many different ways. What about context? The next dimension?

Marco Blankenburgh: 37:07

Yeah, context is all about sort of the rules of the environment, so context is um to do. The most common thing that people talk about is dress code but, there's so much more to it.

Marco Blankenburgh: 37:20

So it's either more informal versus formal. Those are the two polarity words, and in an informal environment, the, the number of rules is, is a lot less than in a more formal environment. And yeah, people always point to dress code. But it also has to do with who sits where at a meeting. How do you address people? Do you use titles or not? Who can speak and who cannot speak? Is there an order in terms of who speaks first, who speaks second? How much formality or informality is there around the way, for instance, delegations are structured? How do you structure a client engagement? Is there more formality or more an informal approach to it? So there's a lot of potential things Anything to do with. Are there written or unwritten ways to engage in this situation? And obviously those are. You know, if you come from an environment where there's very few rules and everything just flows whichever way you want to take it, and then you step into an environment where there's a lot more formality in the context, just at face value you would already be rejected. I saw this.

Shelley Reinhart: 38:52

Yes, so true so.

Marco Blankenburgh: 38:56

So dress code is a classical one. Um, you know, um the the expectations when it comes to dress code from a gender point of view, that's a real challenge to think about. For, for instance, I won't mention names, but there is one country that I know of where wearing a tie is actually almost offensive. I discovered that while I was traveling in and out and somebody was was kind enough to tell me why a tie was seen as offensive, and gladly I left my tie at home. But just a tiny thing like that can already discredit you before you've even said a word.

Shelley Reinhart: 39:51

Yes, so true, and I've seen this play out too generationally. Yeah, you know, like I just read an article that gen z's the most recent grudge uh, sorry, generation. They're getting fired from their jobs. Um, and I think this, this dimension, might play a piece in that. There they're highly informal and their job so that they're walking into are more formal and they're missing the social cues. So is that another example?

Marco Blankenburgh: 40:23

Yes, absolutely, and it's a whole bigger subject there. But the way it's sort of linked dress code is also linked to how we view accountability, which is one of the ones lower down the list individual accountability, combined with being informal versus formal. So what then happens is people think that dress code is exclusively an expression of your own identity because, I'm individually held accountable. I'm more informal, so I dress to express myself in a community accountability culture. You dress to represent the community and there might be self-expression.

Marco Blankenburgh: 41:18

Yeah you, there's self-expression in there, but it's you're always thinking about the community you represent. So if you then walk into with that into an informal environment but it's very different than if you say I am dressing to express my individuality and if you walk with that into a formal environment it's much more likely that you get into trouble. Yes, your article about. You know people getting fired because they miss the social cues. Very often it has to do with that community versus individual accountability.

Shelley Reinhart: 42:01

Ah, it's so fascinating and I love how these dimensions speak into these issues that are occurring right now, every day. And let's talk about connecting.

Marco Blankenburgh: 42:12

That's the next one yeah, I already mentioned connecting as an example of sort of three dimensions that allude to this idea of power distance hierarchy.

Marco Blankenburgh: 42:24

So connecting is all about who is allowed to be part of the conversation, who is allowed to have access to the information. And you know, in a classical exclusive connecting organization or situation it would be highly confidential, there might be security at stake or high threat. But in an inclusive connecting organization it's pretty much information flow, flows freely, people are allowed to be part of conversations, a way that you see that, for instance, if people are in person in an office and there's a small group of people are having a conversation, somebody walks up, they just the circle just widens and that person is included. That's typical, you know vibe of an inclusive organization. While in an exclusive organization I've seen this where people walk up to a group they know that they're having a conversation that is only allowed to be had by those three or four people. And a typical behavior of an exclusive connecting person is they would literally wait at two to three meters distance, uh-huh.

Shelley Reinhart: 43:44

I've seen this, yeah distance.

Marco Blankenburgh: 43:49

Uh huh, I've seen this, yeah, Somebody acknowledges them. They pause the conversation and they they would say something like hey, good to see you, Uh, uh, can I help you? Or hey please join us or we're just finishing up the conversation. You're welcome to join us afterwards, and that's a typical exclusive way of thinking about connecting and obviously that back that can clash when you have both those approaches in the same organization where somebody says why did you send that file to my colleague?

Marco Blankenburgh: 44:19

he's not supposed to have access to that stuff. And then the inclusive person says, yeah, but I thought he would. It would be beneficial for him to understand the context better.

Shelley Reinhart: 44:30

Yeah, but he's not supposed to see that material, you know so yes, the clash yeah, the connecting dimension and I think it's important to just remind everyone we're halfway through this. The 12 is that where do you fall? How? How do you connect? Are you an inclusive or an exclusive connector? I mean, it's important, it's an important piece to understand about yourself. As I took the assessment and saw where I fell, I was like, yes, of course I see myself, but it was still so revealing, at the same time, so important to know where we are on these dimensions personally. So, on that, let's talk about expression, because this is a big one, yes, this is an obvious one another example.

Marco Blankenburgh: 45:19

Well, it's also, uh, one of those dimensions where we we created um more dimensions than in the original research. So the idea that connecting inclusive versus exclusive was one thing, but we also found that emotional expression and how people think about emotional expression had to be a separate dimension, and so that's how we split them out. So connecting is really about information and who's allowed to be part of the conversation. Expression is how I need to navigate my emotions. Can I just freely express them we call that revealing or do I need to conceal my emotions, because that's what the context requires? That's what people think is more professional or more more leadership oriented. So, yeah, how I navigate emotion can I freely just let them flow, or do I need to be regal and contained?

Shelley Reinhart: 46:27

and emotions are are a tool, but they are not easily read on the outside yes, that's a good one, and I'm sure you're thinking of lots of examples, but we, we already did sort of to talk about decision making. You, you did mention that. Can you just quickly go over that one?

Marco Blankenburgh: 46:47

yeah, yeah. So, uh, the two words on the left and right, relationship-based decision making versus rules based making and, uh, either the person who I'm working with determines how we navigate the rules. That means the rules are either beneficial for our relationship and for our project or they're not. If they're beneficial, happily follow them. If they're not as beneficial, we might tweak them, pretend they don't exist, make an exception and, of course, on the other side, the rules-based decision-making is no, it happens to be that you and I are having this conversation, but, hey, the rules will always be.

Shelley Reinhart: 47:33

So that's what we do.

Marco Blankenburgh: 47:36

Even if we don't like it too much, it doesn't sit so well, but the rules will outlive us. So we follow the rules us, so we follow the rules. And obviously, when you get into intercultural teams, when you get into client engagement, you know why can't you make that exception? Or yeah, I know the contract says that, but, yeah, can we do something about it? And there's so many conversations and even, shelly, you're an educator, even in the classroom this happens. Where, know parents?

Marco Blankenburgh: 48:10

come up to teachers and say you know, we would like to talk to you about the grades of our child and what they really mean is could you make some tweaks?

Shelley Reinhart: 48:22

Yes.

Marco Blankenburgh: 48:23

And make it look good. Yes, so yeah, this dimension shows up in so many ways. Yes, I see it. Yes, and make it look good. Yes, so yeah, this dimension shows up in so many ways.

Shelley Reinhart: 48:30

Yes, I see it. Yes, as does the next one in very practical, day-to-day ways planning. So can you tell us about planning?

Marco Blankenburgh: 48:43

Yeah, planning. Here is another interesting thing. So when we looked at the, the research around similar constructs, um, we felt that, for instance, there is a dimension talking about task versus people oriented, and initially we thought, oh, we'll just call embrace that one. But then then we went further into it and we talked with a lot of people from different parts of the world and they said, well, you know, you can be people-oriented but very focused on the task. You're really pursuing one task after the next task. So we felt, okay, people versus task is not necessarily, you know, putting the right language into this equation. So we said, okay, what's at the center? It's how I think about planning.

Shelley Reinhart: 49:36

How much?

Marco Blankenburgh: 49:37

do I plan? Thinking about time is money, time is precious and I need to fill my time in the best possible way. So that's why time is on the side of the equation and I need to fill my time in the best possible way, so that's why time is on the side of the equation. So time-oriented planners they work.

Marco Blankenburgh: 49:55

The calendar and it's tightly managed and it goes. You know there might be breaks, but I've heard many time-oriented planners they say, yeah, I really struggle to put 15-minute gaps between my meetings. I have way too many back-to-backs and which is after covid even got worse people oriented planners they still plan but you look at their calendar and they might not be that much on the calendar but they are really good at timing the exact right moment to connect with somebody yes they're very intentional and they know how to navigate the relational fabric.

Marco Blankenburgh: 50:34

They know how to show up at the right time, use the opportunity. They also know how to read the situation. Say, today I'm not going to ask you that question, uh, because, um, you're not in the right mood.

Shelley Reinhart: 50:48

I'll come back to this later.

Marco Blankenburgh: 50:51

So it's much more fluid and it's much more reading the situation oriented, grabbing the opportunity. And the interesting thing is, you know, super time oriented planners versus super-oriented planners can be equally effective and sometimes the people-oriented planners get more done. The other thing that we noticed the more intercultural the environment is, the more you need to learn to stretch across this dimension. Yes, because you will have certain Conflicts, pound the terms just don't happen, stuff happens. Throws your whole calendar out. Sometimes you just need to grab the opportunity.

Marco Blankenburgh: 51:38

You see somebody you say I need to talk right now and this is the right time to do it. So people who, who are interculturally agile, they I've seen this they really learn to stretch across this dimension very effectively.

Shelley Reinhart: 51:53

That's good, marco. Yes, this, that's an important one. Again, you can see that very practically play out when you move somewhere new. You can see this very quickly. This what about communication? So communication, this is another. I love this one. It's fascinating.

Marco Blankenburgh: 52:15

In in our teamwork, when we build high performing intercultural teams, this always comes up. This is always an issue. So communication is either the one side of the polarities direct communication. The other side is indirect, and both are equally important and both are equally valuable as a form of communication. But what I hear way too often is that direct communicators say well, you're just beating around the bush, why can't you, why didn't you say that in the first place? Or call a spade a spade or things like that.

Marco Blankenburgh: 52:59

And then indirect communicators they say well, you don't care about relationship or why? Why can't you read in between the lines? Your, your ability to communicate is so unsophisticated. Um yeah, so uh fascinating when you listen to direct versus indirect communicators. They're both defending that their style is better or that their way of doing things is better, and actually both are needed in intercultural environments.

Marco Blankenburgh: 53:30

And all I can say is if you are more an indirect communicator, learn to be more direct. If you're a direct communicator, learn the art of indirect communication, because you need both to be successful in an intercultural environment.

Shelley Reinhart: 53:46

And one way I've done that is I speak to my indirect communicator friends and I ask them about what it was like growing up in their homes. How were things communicated? It is so fascinating to listen to the messages they received indirectly from their parents. I'd be like, wow, I would have missed that entirely, didn't know how you pick that up. Yeah, it's, it's really good to ask to.

Marco Blankenburgh: 54:12

You know what's interesting is? I work a lot with leaders and the art of storytelling has become really important for leaders and a lot of people say, yeah, I don't know how to do that really well, but the art of storytelling is really much more on the indirect side.

Marco Blankenburgh: 54:31

Yes, it's like telling a story that could be almost a parable, like a corporate parable or an organizational parable that illustrates a value that the business or organization believes in, or illustrates a significant moment in the past, etc. So the art of storytelling for leaders, it sort of shows that indirect communication is necessary to really create healthy culture, to celebrate the organization, to celebrate our values, reinforce them etc.

Shelley Reinhart: 55:05

Yes, yes, and accountability is a big part of that as well, and we sort of talked about this earlier. But can you just refresh us?

Marco Blankenburgh: 55:13

accountability, one of the two polarities again again, this is a dimension which, if you're familiar with polarities in the intercultural space, uh, hofstetter and hall came up with collectivism versus individualism this sort of alludes to that, but we again felt that, in the world that we live in today, we needed to to articulate it in a different way, and, and the more we spoke with people from different parts of the world, the more we realize what's at the center of this. It's not individualism as we understand it today.

Marco Blankenburgh: 55:53

It's who I am accountable to so am I accountable to myself for my growth, my development, my opinion, my direction in life, or am I truly accountable to my family, my tribe, the team, the department, the sports club I belong to? Is there a sense of no matter where I go, I always represent that community, I always represent my family, I always represent our country, and so the word accountability we put that at the center, which we have now. You know, we've worked with this in over 70 countries around the world and it really makes this come alive in a different way and obviously this has become a huge one. Even you mentioned generational differences. So we, the younger generation, there is a desire for I call it a tribe to belong to and a purpose to pursue.

Marco Blankenburgh: 56:59

So belonging at work has become more and more important and it's like a global trend, no matter where people culturally come from, and that alludes to the the community accountability side of things. People don't just go to work, to work, do a job, get paid and walk away. There is a much more of a desire to to have community at work. So that's that's a trend that we find when we do teamwork, for instance. We talk a lot about okay, yes, holding people individually accountable is important. Giving people a voice is important, allowing people to self-express and self-develop, but what's equally important is creating that tribe, creating that sense of belonging, that sense of belonging, that sense of community and, uh, celebrating the group, celebrating the team, but also holding the whole team accountable, both for the. You know. Celebrate your successes, but be accountable for your failures as well.

Marco Blankenburgh: 58:00

So, this dimension has become really important in culture creation.

Shelley Reinhart: 58:05

Oh, it's so good. I yes so much. We could just talk about this for much longer, but let's hit number 12, which is status. Can you tell us about status?

Marco Blankenburgh: 58:17

status is all about how you become I. I alluded to it earlier on. Uh, so either the one side of the polarity is achieved status and the other side is ascribed status. So achieved is really you work hard for it, you get noticed, you get rewarded and you get given that promotion or you get given that position or that accolade. So that's the achieved side of status. The ascribed side of status is typically it can be within the family, tribal system of your place you grew up in. So it can even be linked to caste, so certain countries who have a caste system where there is certain predefined things you can and cannot do within society. But it can also be to do with your level of degree. It can be to do with years of service in the organization. It can also be that certain types of degrees are appreciated more than other types of degrees in certain organizations. So if you're working in a construction company, an engineering degree is highly respected.

Marco Blankenburgh: 59:42

If it's more of an ascribed status environment, for instance. Now the interest this dimension has. There's so many things to say about this. One of the places where this dimension really shows up is in things like localization of the workforce or affirmative action, and there's huge issues around the world where people say, well, we want to make sure that people who previously didn't have the opportunity they now get the opportunity. So then you have quotas and systems of quotas where people get ascribed, they get the opportunity to step into a role, especially if they were previously disadvantaged, but then they forget to put a mechanism in place so that they can also achieve it. So they get given the status. So I now have a seat at the university.

Marco Blankenburgh: 1:00:40

I never thought that one of our family members would get the opportunity to go, but then the mechanism is not in place to then also turn that into achievement turn that into merit, and we've seen this in in places like south africa with affirmative action, where merit was thrown out to some extent and where belonging to a specific group gave you the access ticket. So no matter if you first achieve and then you get given the ascribed status because you now have been awarded with the accolades or the promotion or you're now the leader of the organization, then you get ascribed. You could come from the other side where you first get given the opportunity to be, but then you as a person have to say I get given this opportunity. I need to now prove that I'm worthy of it, so I need to also achieve now in.

Marco Blankenburgh: 1:01:47

In many tribes around the world those mechanisms still exist. You get ascribed first and then you earn it, or you get, you earn it to some extent. You get ascribed and then you need to live up to it. But in many corporates those mechanisms don't exist anymore. So every time when affirmative action is used or localization of the workforce we have a lot of that here in the Gulf region Learning to apply both ascribed mechanisms and achieved mechanisms in culturally appropriate ways is very hard, but incredibly important.

Shelley Reinhart: 1:02:28

So good. Well, we've made it through all 12 dimensions and I think we have a good sense of what each of them entail, how they're structured, some examples around them. Thank you, marco. This is very helpful, and this is only part one. We're gonna do a part two as well, where we're going to talk about how the twelve dimensions are connected to the three colors of worldview and then how we can use the twelve dimensions in practical ways in our marriages, our friendships, our work and our client relationships. So that that's what's coming. So this just lays the foundation and the groundwork for reflection, and I hope you all get a chance to take the cultural mapping inventory. You can find all that you need to know in the links provided. And, marco, anything else to add before we close?

Marco Blankenburgh: 1:03:26

I can't wait to get into that second episode, because that's where it really comes, alive yeah yes and especially making the connection with the, the three colors of worldview yes the different lenses on on who you are as a cultural human being. There's a lot of bridges between these two tools that really illuminate and the super practical when it comes to bridge building, strengthening relationships, answering the why of difficult intercultural dilemmas that you might face. So, yeah, I'm looking forward to part two.

Shelley Reinhart: 1:04:03

Me too, me as well. Thank you so much, Marco. Thanks for all of you who are listening today. We're so grateful you're here with us and we'll see you or listen to you during the second second part two thanks, marco bye, I might need to redo that ending. I need to redo that ending, but that's okay. He can cut it off sooner, yeah.

Marco Blankenburgh: 1:04:37

Yeah, okay, I think he can, yeah, yeah.

Shelley Reinhart: 1:04:39

He'll just cut it off, yeah.