Handling Cultural Resistance

Building a strong company culture is a continuous process. It requires more than just defining values and hanging posters on the wall. It demands active participation and a genuine commitment to two-way communication. Too often, organizations fall into the trap of "top-down" culture building. Leaders dictate the values, but employees are left feeling unheard and disconnected. True culture change happens from the bottom up. Think of it like this: you can say you value transparency, but if you look down on people who speak up, your culture will be anything but transparent. Actions speak louder than words. So, how do we build cultures that truly resonate? • Involve employees in the process from the start. • Create safe spaces for open and honest feedback. • Empower individuals to contribute to shaping the culture. • Be consistent in your actions, demonstrating the values you preach. The result? A workplace where people are engaged and genuinely invested in the company's success. Yes, building a culture of trust and transparency takes time and effort. But the payoff is immense.

🥗🍱🍝 "Have you eaten?" vs. "How is the weather today?" ☀️🌦️❄️ During a business trip in Asia, I started a meeting with a typical 'German' question about the weather. I was met with puzzled looks until I realized: it's always 31°C in Singapore – what a pointless small talk question! When I then asked the team how they would start a meeting, they suggested asking if and what everyone had eaten. They explained, "With a full stomach, the mind is primed for productivity!" I also remember a German colleague mentioning a product launch in summer. Our Asian colleagues responded, "Which summer do you mean? Here it's always summer!" --- As we work extensively in teams across countries, intercultural competencies are more crucial than ever! Experiences like these help us become more aware of cultural differences and tailor our communication accordingly. We just launched 8 "Culture Videos," featuring insights from Infineon Technologies colleagues worldwide on conversation starters, common pitfalls, meeting protocols, and feedback dynamics. Additionally, we have 12 one-page Learning Nuggets on "How to do business with Germans/Austrians/Indians/Filipinos...". These are quick yet insightful reads. For those needing more in-depth knowledge, we offer a range of intercultural trainings tailored to various professional contexts. 🥨 Now: "What have you eaten and what was your intercultural learning when collaborating with colleagues from different countries?"

Every organization says its values matter. But the real question is whether anyone can see them. This visual captures a truth leaders often overlook. Values do not live in posters or documents. They live in the everyday cultural practices that surround people long before they read a single sentence about what the organization stands for. ↳ Symbols show up in the way you brand your work, the stories you celebrate, even the small signals people receive when they walk into a room. ↳ Heroes reveal themselves in who gets acknowledged, who is admired, and whose behavior becomes the informal standard. ↳ Rituals are the repeated moments that shape how people feel when they gather, decide, reflect, or close a year together. ↳ Practices are the actions that quietly reinforce what is truly acceptable and what is not. When these layers align, values become tangible. People experience them without needing explanations. When they do not, values start dissolving into aspiration rather than reality. This time, so close to the end of the year is a natural moment to notice the rituals that hold your culture together. The way teams close projects, express gratitude, celebrate progress, or take a pause before stepping into a new season. These small moments often reveal more about your actual values than any formal statement ever could. So if you want stronger values next year, do not start with rewriting them. Start with understanding the cultural practices that already shape how your people think, feel, and behave. That is where values either live or fade.

If we want sustainable organisational change, which group is more important? (a) People who are active in response to the change (even if they're resistant); or (b) People who accept the change? New research suggests (a); it's more important for people to be active in change than it is to get favourable responses to it. Active dissenters/resisters are preferable to passive people who go along with the change. Many existing change frameworks focus on “valence”: the extent to which people are positive or negative about change. This research suggests another dimension: “activation” - the energy or action level in people’s response to change - whether they're engaged, energetic & visible (active) or quiet, withdrawn, & non-participative (passive). The authors offer a 4 box framework called “the Change Response Circumplex Scale”. I’ve added some strategies for working with different people alongside their graphic. Active resistance is preferable to passive disengagement because it:  -keeps the lines of feedback & dialogue open -surfaces important information & risks that passive compliance might hide -creates the conditions for long term engagement in change. Implications of this research for change leaders: 1. Go beyond reducing resistance: Don’t just focus solely on minimising resistance or seeking passive agreement; aim to foster active, positive engagement -what the authors term “change proactivity.” 2. Understand engagement levels: Differentiate between passive acceptance, disengagement & truly active, positive support. Use the framework to gauge people’s responses to your change initiative. 3. Create interventions accordingly: Disengaged people need approaches to increase involvement, passive assent can become active support & resistance can become constructive dialogue. 4. Leverage the value of dissent: Rather than viewing resistance solely as an obstacle, explore what motivates active dissent & use it as a resource for learning & adaptation. I appreciate this model because it challenges the existing (dubious) advice for change leaders to “overcome resistance to change”. Rather, we should work to activate engagement in change. The research suggests that both high activation responses (change proactivity & change resistance) show the most promise for long term change engagement. Activism is what changes the world. There are 2 research articles about this framework: 1) from 2024, validates the framework (This is from Scrid so it's accessible): https://lnkd.in/eZ5yjFwf. 2) from 2025, sets the framework in a wider change context & is in this LinkedIn post from 'Cheese' 🧀 Cheeseman https://lnkd.in/epzce-QG. By Shaul Oreg & Noga Sverdlik.

⚠️ Warning: Don’t follow the OpenAI prompting advice released yesterday unless you want biased outputs that reinforce gaps between your students. Yesterday, OpenAI released a K12 prompting guide (in comments). It scaffolded ‘okay’, ‘good’ and ‘great’ prompts, and celebrated the success of those labelled as “great”. But there’s nothing to celebrate here. In fact, there’s more to fear. Many of the “great” examples rely on asking GenAI to produce 'engaging activities'. That sounds harmless. But when left open, the word “engaging” brings in all kinds of bias from the training data. Take this example prompt from the guide: “Create a lesson plan for a high school history class on World War II. Include an engaging activity, discussion questions, and suggestions for multimedia resources. Tailor the content for students with a basic understanding of 20th-century history.” The outputs this kind of prompt generates often favour dominant norms: here Western-Centric, neurotypical, gender under-representation, privileged. Thousands of teachers, lecturers and teacher educators are working every day to narrow these gaps in attainment. But vague prompts like “make it engaging” can quietly widen them, unless we know how to guide these tools with care. In my research on physics outputs from GenAI, I’ve started to categorise how this bias appears. It shows in how explanations are framed, who is represented, and which learners are centred. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be sharing a series that explores ten common forms of bias in GenAI lesson outputs, and how we can mitigate against them through more intentional prompting. The topics are: ➡️ Accessibility Bias ➡️ Cognitive Style Bias ➡️ Modality Bias ➡️ Cultural Bias and Western-Centric Defaults ➡️ Identity-Neutral Design ➡️ Participation Bias ➡️ Home Context and Privilege Assumptions ➡️ Gender Bias and Role Stereotypes ➡️ Neurodiversity Bias ➡️ Teacher-Centric Power Dynamics These patterns affect more than just content. They shape who feels seen, supported and challenged in the learning process. ⬇️ Check out my simple analysis of bias in OpenAI's recommended 'great' prompt - link in comments. If you have examples, experiences or questions, please drop them in the comments or message me directly, so we can build this set of mitigations together as educators.

"𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘱𝘶𝘴𝘩, 𝘸𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘴𝘩 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳." It’s an unspoken agreement in workplaces everywhere. Are you unknowingly igniting resistance instead of sparking change? 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗼𝗼 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗱
 At City Hospital (a pseudonym used to protect confidentiality), the CEO, “Juliette Garnier” (also a pseudonym), believed decisive action would save the day. Faced with a funding crisis, she enforced a 10% budget cut across departments. Her intent? Keep the hospital afloat. The result? Chaos. Her leadership team froze in silence, employees raged in the corridors, and nurses threatened a strike over unsafe working conditions. Garnier had unknowingly stepped into what I call The 𝙋𝙪𝙨𝙝 𝘽𝙖𝙘𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣: * 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 = 𝗘𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀 * 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲𝘀 = 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 The harder you push, the harder people push back. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲
 Resistance isn’t about rejecting change. It’s about rejecting the way change is imposed. When people feel ignored, undervalued, or strong-armed, their silence or anger signals mistrust and resentment. The more forceful the push, the stronger the resistance grows. 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻
 Garnier recognised the pattern and shifted her approach. Instead of enforcing change, she invited her team to co-create solutions. Within weeks, the same employees who had resisted her became her strongest allies, crafting a plan that cut costs without compromising care. The strike was called off, and trust was restored. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 
Leaders who force change light fires that burn bridges. Those who nudge—inviting collaboration and listening deeply—build lasting trust and sustainable results. Are you lighting fires or building bridges? Would love to hear your views: What strategies have worked for you to overcome resistance and inspire collaboration? 📚 For a systemic lens to creating lasting change, explore the ideas in my book, 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙃𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙈𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙩 𝙒𝙤𝙧𝙠.

A few years back, a colleague asked me whether I would tone down my critiques of workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion so as to not encourage anti-DEI activists. I responded with a firm but gentle, "no." There's good intention behind these calls for unity. In the face of widespread attacks against not only DEI but civil rights, free speech, and public institutions more broadly, we all desperately want strength in numbers. We want a strong pro-DEI "us" to fight the anti-DEI "them." Except, that's not quite an accurate representation of how people feel about DEI. A 2024 JUST Capital survey found that out of 17 workplace concerns, "an inclusive workplace" ranked at 12th, far behind fair wages, ethical behavior, transparent communication, and work-life balance. A 2024 Gallup survey on what workers want out of a workplace found that high-quality health benefits, workplace culture, and flexible work arrangements were people's highest priorities. "A company that promotes DEI" ranked dead last, in 9th place. I'll be the first person to say that all of these priorities are outcomes of diversity, equity, and inclusion work...when it's done right. Is it done right in your workplace? Do most workplaces with a DEI committee pay workers fairly? Do most workplaces with cultural heritage celebrations act ethically? Do most workplaces with unconscious bias training communicate fairly, offer inclusive benefits, have a respectful workplace culture, and offer flexible work? No? Then we have a ways to go before we can insist on closing ranks and preaching about the unambiguous value of status quo DEI. What a huge proportion of workers (and ironically some proportion of right-wing extremists) realize is that most workplace DEI efforts don't actually benefit workers. In most workplaces, they signal support through empty commitment, deputize already under-appreciated women and people of color to do free labor, and sustain employee engagement through entertainment promising change that never happens. Workers might strongly believe in the core ideas of diversity, equity, and inclusion—but they owe no allegiance to "DEI" as their workplace carries it out. They couldn't care less that their workplace's DEI practitioner can deliver a rousing speech on the value of equity...if they're still getting underpaid, laid off, passed over for promotion, and discriminated against. Unless practitioners of diversity, equity, and inclusion and leaders who work with them can bridge that gap with real impact, unless we can deliver practical benefit beyond moral righteousness, we will keep losing this battle. Critiquing the status quo is the bare minimum we ought to do if we want to win. Clearly articulating a vision for a better future, pointing out what's not working in the present (even if it's our own efforts!) and delivering real value despite the headwinds is our best path forward.

A few years ago, a CEO I coached said, “Every week feels the same. The same fires, just in different departments.” Like many leaders, he was solving brilliantly but within the same loop. ✅ What he needed was a systems-thinking shift. It often comes down to this: • Leaders who think in steps solve problems repeatedly. • Leaders who think in systems solve them once. Most leadership energy is wasted in firefighting mode, reacting to outcomes instead of addressing the structures that create them. Systems-thinking leadership changes that. It’s preventive leadership. Instead of asking, “What went wrong?” Ask, “What pattern keeps creating this?” When you fix the pattern, the symptom often disappears permanently. That’s why organisations led by systems thinkers see up to a 60% reduction in recurring issues. You can start by: 1. Mapping the flow:  Where does the problem originate? 2. Identifying repetition: What keeps resurfacing? 3. Intervening at structure: What policy, rhythm, or decision loop fuels it? One systemic intervention can prevent dozens of future fires. That’s strategic leverage. Because when leaders build systems that self-correct, teams become self-managing, and leadership finally shifts from firefighting to fire prevention. What’s one recurring issue in your organization that might be a system problem in disguise? #LeadershipDevelopment #SystemsThinking 

In the West, trust often begins with capability: “Show me what you can do, and I’ll believe in you.” But in Japan, it starts with character: “Let me understand who you are, then I’ll trust what you do.” At monoya, we’ve felt this difference deeply. When we first started engaging with Japanese partners, we expected our portfolio and success stories to do the talking. They didn’t. Meetings were polite but reserved. Decisions moved slowly. Then we shifted gears—less pitching, more listening. We invested in relationships. We showed up consistently. We respected silence and patience. Over time, trust started to build—not because we talked about our work, but because we shared our values. One moment that stands out: a partner told us, “What mattered wasn’t your proposal—it was how you carried yourself.” That stuck with us. In Japan, trust isn’t built in the boardroom—it’s built in the in-between moments: over dinner, during shared silences, through consistent follow-ups. It’s relational, not transactional. For global teams entering Japan, remember: trust here is earned slowly, but it’s rock-solid once it’s there. Have you experienced this cultural shift in trust-building? I’d love to hear your thoughts. #Trust #JapanBusiness #CulturalInsights #monoya #CrossCulturalLeadership

Your highest performers are quietly crumbling. Not because they're weak. Your organisation taxes performance. And no one talks about it. I watched a CHRO present glowing leadership metrics last week: "Our top talent is crushing targets. Culture scores are up." Then the CEO asked a question that froze the room: "Why did we lose four directors this quarter?" The truth? High-performance cultures often destroy the very leaders they claim to value. According to DDI, 71% of leaders report significantly higher stress since taking their roles. Meanwhile, 56% of senior leaders hit burnout last year. This isn't normal attrition. It's organisational self-sabotage. The hidden performance tax works like this: 1. Short-term results trump everything Quarterly targets create survival thinking. Long-term planning becomes a luxury. 2. Execution beats development Leaders who deliver now get promoted. Those who build for tomorrow get overlooked. 3. Firefighting outranks fire prevention Crisis responders become heroes. Culture builders become "nice to haves." The cost? Beyond £130K to replace each leader, you create a system that: → Rewards heroic burnout over sustainable results → Teaches leaders to hide struggles until they break → Drives away precisely the talent you need for tomorrow Three shifts that transform high-performance into lasting success: 1. Measure leadership beyond delivery Track psychological safety, team retention, and succession strength. 2. Reward the invisible work Recognise leaders who develop others, not just those hitting numbers. 3. Create strategic pauses Make room for thinking and relationship building. The best decisions rarely happen in back-to-back meetings. Your best people aren't resources to be consumed. They're assets to be developed. What's one way organisations tax its highest performers? Share below. For more People and Change insights and challenging the norm: Follow Hayden Swerling 📩 Weekly insights: https://lnkd.in/eysBEU_k