This is the last part of a three-part article. If you haven’t read the other parts, I suggest you read those first.

You can read the first part here, which introduces cultural intelligence in the entertainment sector and producing in it.

You can read the second part here, which discusses the eight scales of The Culture Map and my experience per scale. I strongly suggest to read this part to understand this part the best.

The global immersive project case study

A while ago, I worked on a global immersive event with executive producers from the United States, a creative director from Switzerland, and my own Dutch team. It was a very interesting collaboration and a fascinating cultural case study in which multiple cultural scales proved relevant.

The Americans were focused on the reputations of the people on the team (this was also due to their role as producers, so they were looking at how to commercialise the product). They were asking: Who is attached to the project? What does that signal to the market? How does this strengthen the brand? Their perspective was strategic, because in the entertainment industry reputation is currency. It was also very important for them to have everything legally written down. Before I could get started on the project, I had to sign a very official document.
So here we recognise: task-based trust and low-context communication.

The creative director (who was Swiss) was looking for people who offered the highest quality to his concept, as could be expected based on his role. Relationships between him and others were organised in a hierarchy, although it was still seen as collaboration. He was also looking for a sparring partner (within limits), resulting in many meetings filled with talk and also many updates. This meant many hours were spent on the project.
Here we recognise: hierarchical leading, mostly relationship-based trust and confrontational disagreeing.

The Dutch team was picking up all the specialisations: set design, light design, video content and audio production. So the team was working out the details that the creative director conceptualised. As I mentioned before, the Dutch mostly focus on efficiency and dislike hierarchy. We got the input from the creative director and started working on it. Within a few days, we had a full presentation prepared. We asked ourselves: what is the most efficient way to execute this, within budget and time? How do we make this work practically, without unnecessary complications?
Here we recognise: low-context culture and linear leading.

Three perspectives. All committed to the same end result, but shaped by different cultural programming. And just looking at these descriptions, it’s easy to see how certain elements could end up clashing with one another.

• The Dutch think the other is overcomplicating things and ‘wasting hours’.
• The Swiss creative director thinks the Dutch team want to go too quickly, while he wants to spar more together first.
• The Americans feel the Dutch were going too fast, already working on it before everything is legally set.

As the producer, I tried to manage everyone’s expectations as much as possible. False expectations emanating from one’s cultural programming can cause friction when they are not met by colleagues whose own cultural programming makes them behave contrary to those expectations. By seeding more realistic expectations, people were able to deal with unexpected behaviours, as they had been forewarned about them.  

I also quickly realised some people in my team had issues with the cultural differences, causing internal frustration. I tried to discuss it and whenever that didn’t help, I tried to act as the go-between for all the parties: meeting with the international team members and then rephrasing their input or requests into ‘the Dutch language’ so my team member could understand and we could avoid frustration. In a sense, I acted as a buffer between parties with differing cultural programming and their resulting approaches.

This was only possible because, through personal experience and study of Meyer’s theory, I had attained enough cultural intelligence to understand both perspectives. By shielding parties from the other’s disruptive approaches, I was able to allow each side to work within their own cultural ‘bubble’, which in turn allowed them to do their best work. I acknowledge that this is hardly the most ideal way to handle this situation (it would be preferable to have collaborators who possess enough cultural intelligence to get along without a ‘buffer’), but in practice, it sometimes seems to be the only realistic option.

Most of the cultural differences and the resulting problems I ran into during this project can easily be resolved if people communicate expectations and reasoning (that is, if there is even room to discuss such things, as in some cultures having this discussion might be difficult). But it’s important to be aware that not everybody is equally sensitive to these differences, nor can they necessarily handle them expertly. Because of this, even within your own team, you need to keep an eye on how things are going.

Just one side note before we go to the conclusion is that I write about significant differences between cultures. But, of course, people also have a personality, roles and functions. I touch very slightly upon it in this case study: the role of someone also decides how someone looks at a situation and their expectation. So sometimes a difference is not a cultural difference, but just two personalities that don’t match. To be fair, in the end, it doesn’t really matter. Cultural intelligence is understanding how to create rapport with the other party, regardless of the level at which the difference occurs.

Conclusion

Cultural intelligence is the ability to recognise that your way is not the only logical way. It is understanding that someone can be equally competent, equally committed, and equally ambitious and still approach a situation very differently, while staying faithful to your own core values. Especially if the other party has little cultural intelligence awareness.

Meyer’s theory of scales of cultural difference can be useful to make sense of people’s approach to work and collaboration. It’s not about cultural stereotypes, nor is it about reducing national cultures to fixed characteristics. Individuals are always more complex than cultural models. But individuals from the same culture do share a lot of common beliefs, expectations and ways of doing things. And they often think of these as simply ‘natural’. When individuals from different cultures have to work together, their different approaches can lead to problems.

What I wanted to do in this article is increase awareness of this phenomenon, as I believe too few people are consciously aware of the impact this can have on projects. Many do it on instinct, but it might be good to delve a bit deeper into it. Simply understanding that cultural differences can be a factor in international collaboration and taking the time to set realistic expectations and establish shared protocols can help prevent frustration, disappointment and ultimately loss of productivity.

I do believe producers, in particular, will always need to be a mediating force between culturally different collaborators. Producers (and anyone in a leadership position) have to navigate expectations around leadership style, assertiveness, negotiation, and authority. Add cross-cultural dynamics to that and the complexity multiplies. Understanding of the cultural context allows producers to lead strategically instead of reactively.

Finally, I still think vulnerability is key. Admitting you need clarification or have trouble understanding someone’s reasoning isn’t a weakness. It’s an invitation to create more understanding and trust, which in turn will help foster stronger relationships with collaborators.

For producers who want to work globally cultural intelligence is and always will be a key part of the job. I hope this three-part article has helped you to increase yours and thus can help you become a better producer.