The Need for Culture Neutrality

Frode Hvaring, there are a number of ways to apply neutrality. The definition to apply is "An Attitude of Impartiality."  The neutral is not indifferent to the conflict, but treats parties in conflict in a way that does not create a material advantage for one over the other.  Neutrality is anything but compromise.  This is where the "harmonization of world wide practices" directly related to neutrality can truly be helpful at operational levels, rather than purely through esoteric and theoretical constructs like implicit bias.  I would welcome the opportunity to share the concept of a CultureNeutral® Framework which Professor Mukherjee has endorsed, and how it is implemented for operational improvement of organizational cohesion, relations and performance.

While I find the proposal of Cultural Neutrality an interesting construct, I still remain skeptical to its concrete application.
Cultural Intelligence (CQ) is supportive to the management of differences, cultural diversities and I have used the CQ approach and tools with success in a few settings, without "neutralizing" the cultural differences, even when they were in opposition.
The word neutrality seems to indicate a place in the middle, somewhere between the extreme poles. Although this kind of compromise can be handy in many situations, I believe it's more useful to focus on harnessing contemporaneously the polarized cultural elements, the complexities present in a given situation.
By wanting to always adapt and "neutralize", one loses the riches of diversity and serendipity. The solutions may be less innovative and less sustainable.
Except perhaps for Values, Business fundamentals and Ethics, as well as communication tools, where indeed a certain harmonization of world wide practices can be helpful... if well accompanied by the right cultural sensitivity.

JAMES HEMSATH, it is easy to understand the fault in believing that that "neutrality" is somehow equivalent to "moral isolationism."  Those who are unfamiliar with the application of that term of art in international/global commerce and international conflict often suffer the misconception that neutrality somehow equates to a cultural laissez faire, indifference or rejection of involvement in world/cultural affairs.  Especially for those engaged in wars/conflicts, like advocates of "diversity" variants, the idea of failing to take sides in the conflict is anathema. However, it is a badly mistaken view, and creates assumptions . 

The fundamental operational definition of neutrality is 'an attitude of impartiality.'  When we look at a nation like Switzerland, or an organization like the International Red Cross, or United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), we see entities that center on a values system based on impartiality, specifically neutrality. In fact, likely every nation on earth has a neutrality policy (managed and exercised in different ways), and those kinds of policies have usually served them well over time.  The United States early history presented opportunities for neutrality, and the first President established the first American Neutrality in 1793...and the history of U.S. neutrality is quite fascinating. 

The somewhat myopic view of practitioners in The Diversity Paradigm has beclouded the issue of cultural neutrality. Like most belligerents, the general philosophy is that "if you're not for me, you're against me." It is the classic binary ally-enemy construct that perpetuates conflict, and ultimately leads to total warfare in which there is no neutral space. That unfortunate position of diversity practitioners is twofold.

First , "diversityism" is coming to represent the idea that anything and everything that is culturally homogeneous is by nature a bad thing, and must fixed.  Your comment validates that The Diversity Paradigm praxis is promulgation of that idea. It has been effective, if not subtle.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, a "differences-based" mindset in which we are taught to meet one another first and foremost on the basis of our differences has proven itself a dismal failure in the USA, and that epic failure of The [American] Diversity Paradigm is spreading around the globe. Promoting a view to differences as an entry point and process path for optimum results simply has no basis in science or history.

While I have only the greatest respect for Hofstede's analytical work, and others' like him, Professor Mukherjee and others around the world are recognizing that being draw in to the intercultural conflict and making attempts to resolve it in business processes will be about as fruitful as efforts to resolve Middle East conflict has been with a focus on resolving their differences within a single state. 

Words do indeed create worlds, Sir. I could not agree with you more. Particularly since the 1890s, the global community has adopted quite formal definitions of the term neutrality as it relates to commerce and conflict, and can rest assured that it means anything but laissez faire or moral isolationism.

Back in the 1970s I was working internationally with people from different cultural backgrounds. We also formed several teams that in today's lingo would be 'cross-functional'. In my first management job, I had Russians, Filipinos, Latin Americans, Western Europeans, Armenians, Middle Easterners, and Americans working with me. We worked hard together and had fun together. If the digital impact has done one thing well it is to lessen the importance of cultural differences as those of us in business are exposed to lots of interaction, digital and otherwise, from customers, suppliers, competitors and co-workers from all over the globe. Today I work with small/mid-sized manufacturers in the middle of the USA and the folk who do business globally and have a strong sense of our common humanity and how to leverage our sameness and accommodate our differences. They are not focussed on defining top down standards, but rather figuring out how to allow more and more control on the front-line. They are focussed on shifting the motivational model away from top-down pain, fear, and gain to more peer based motivators - kinship, identity, and meaning which turn out to be universal. They also try to focus on behaviors first, outcomes second. People can control behaviors, not so much outcomes. Your example, to "...promote needed outcomes (e.g., “make decisions”) without prescribing behaviors (e.g., “is decisive”) is mistaken. "Make decisions" is a behavior not an outcome. "Is decisive" is a judgement of a person (we all make decisions all the time and I suspect "is decisive" is not culturally neutral).   Neither example is particularly useful, since deciding to delay a decision is a decision. It may be that the cultural difference problem you're looking for is rarer than ever.

I respectfully disagree with Professor Mukherjee's column and conclusions and while it might seem that I am parsing definitions words matter, words create worlds and we must be careful of the worlds we create.  Cultural Neutrality is not the way to go in todays global world, it may have value in a single company model such as IBM and the work that Hofstede did to define cultural dimensions, which is the point of Assumption 1, we are in a world as he describes "projects today bring together people from both different companies and different cultures".  This is the "pervasive heterogeneity" that Professor Mukherjee suggests can tear global companies apart.  As an aside, the example given about Boeing was not really an example of collaboration but rather very carefully crafted negotiations and agreement to cooperate (our national airlines will buy your plane if you build parts of it in our country).  There was no real room for collaborative effort in this negotiation and while the 787 is a wonderful, cutting edge aircraft - it ultimately was almost a year late in deliveries due in large part to these transactions.

I have just completed 2 years of research in how multiparty "teams" collaborate when working with groups from different countries (Hemsath, 2017).  One finding was that it was critical to understand and actively manage cultural differences.   You do not want culturally neutral leadership - that is the road to moral isolationism - you want to have culturally intelligent leadership.  This theory of cultural intelligence (CQ) suggests that the greater an individual’s CQ, the more likely they will be successful in developing relations with someone from a different culture (Ang et al., (2007). 

While I concur with the statement "understanding that executives from different parts of the world can be equally effective despite having very different leadership styles", I believe that the continuation "as long as these styles are culturally appropriate in their parts of the world" can lead to very significant ethical dilemmas for an cross-border, multiple organization team the author referenced in his assumption 1.  I strongly recommend the essay "Trying Out One's New Sword" by Mary Midgley (1981) for anyone working in a transnational environment.  A transnational multiparty team is not about homogeneity but, in maintaining the ability for all parties to keep their “identities” it allows people to build on very strengths those differences provide. If a team creates a barrier of moral isolationism it creates a barrier for developing the interconnectedness between participants that lead to trust and empathy.  This forms the basis of creating a true shared vision and creating an environment where collaboration can take place. 

This idea of allowing the deep discussions necessary to create an ethical framework for the team should be based on understanding our common Humanity, knowing what concepts are Preferences and being able to make the moral Judgement that Midgley point us to. This very intimate action will drive the process leading to a sense of interconnectedness of the team at a spiritual level (Mitroff & Denton, 1999).  To isolate ourselves from different cultures as articulated through the moral and ethics of those cultures is to isolate ourselves from our own identity.  We do not live and have not lived in a “sealed box, but rather a fertile jungle of different influences; all cultures are formed out of many streams, morally and physically there is only one world and we all have to live in it” (Midgley, 1981).  Training people to be cultural neutralists is a road to poor performing projects and a continuation of colonialism.

Every country has other culture. so this is very helpful. 
Thanks for sharing.
Success short time 

Amit S. Mukherjee, you have hit upon a theme that I have used as a central theme in my consulting for quite a few years. If you search the term "CultureNeutral" you will find me. (I don't know if putting a URL in the comment is appropriate.)

I would suggest this, sir.  It is crucial for "leadership" to understand and adopt a sophisticated view of neutrality, but that is far from the only level at which it must exist in an organization to achieve the desired end. The CultureNeutral® Framework I've developed centers on organizational behavior change at multiple levels, and operationalizes the well known principle of neutrality. 

As you intimate, "The Diversity Paradigm" has most assuredly failed...and has run its course. It is collapsing under its own weight. 

The more effective alternative has been here all along. Although you said "...for now, there is a lack of a “complete” model to emulate," I would respectfully argue that "complete" hasn't been a requirement for management models, especially in turbulent times.  That said, the principle and applications of neutrality around the world and throughout modern history (the last few thousand years of it) provide far more of a "complete" picture than you might think. 

Neutrality isn't new...but it's unique as a management concept. Your post is a solid indication that forward thinking management leaders are taking another good hard look at a time-tested and time-honored fundamental principle for dealing with globalization.