Chapter 17 — Exercises

These exercises put you on both sides of the management relationship — as the boss adjusting your style, and as the report figuring out how to be managed well. The chapter's hardest idea is that the Western leadership instincts you're proudest of (empowering, hands-off, candid feedback in the room) can read as their opposite in a steep hierarchy. Most of what follows is practice at catching that inversion before it costs you a team.

Selected answers and sample responses appear in Appendix: Answers to Selected Exercises. Exercises marked with ✍️ feed directly into your Cultural Intelligence Portfolio.

Part A — Check Your Understanding

Short answers in your own words. If you can't answer one, reread the matching section before moving on.

  1. Explain "the empowerment trap" in two sentences. Why can a hands-off, "you're the experts, you decide" style read as weak leadership in a hierarchical culture rather than as respect?
  2. The chapter says "clarity is the respect." Restate what that means for how a manager should delegate and decide in a steep hierarchy.
  3. Walk through the China-praise anchor (David and Mei). Name the three invisible errors David made by praising Mei publicly, and state the precise fix.
  4. Why is "praise the team in public, the individual in private" the inversion of the Western default? What does each arena accomplish?
  5. A report says "yes" to your instruction and then doesn't do it. Give two non-blaming reasons "yes" might have meant something other than "I agree and will do this."
  6. List the four moves for managing Eastern team members well, in one phrase each.
  7. You report to an Eastern boss and disagree with a plan they just presented to the team. Why is raising it privately afterward usually both the more respectful and the more effective choice?

Part B — Check Your Assumptions

The core skill again: catching a Western management instinct in the act of pretending to be neutral good practice. For each statement, decide whether it's a universal principle of good management or a culturally specific Western preference. Then write one sentence on how a hierarchical or face-conscious workplace might see it differently.

  1. "A good manager empowers the team and stays out of the details."
  2. "Public recognition of a top performer motivates everyone to do better."
  3. "Honest, direct feedback should be given promptly — waiting to soften it is just avoidance."
  4. "Changing jobs every couple of years shows healthy ambition and keeps your skills sharp."
  5. "A manager should keep a clear line between work and employees' personal lives."
  6. "If you disagree with your boss's plan, the professional thing is to say so in the meeting."

The point is not that the Western view is wrong. Each statement is defensible at home and lands differently abroad. Noticing the reflex — "but that's just good management" — is the whole exercise.

Part C — Decode This

Each item is a real cross-cultural management moment. Write what the Western party probably assumes it means, then a plausible alternative meaning inside a hierarchical/face operating system.

  1. You tell your new Seoul team, "Bring me your ideas — I trust you to run with it," and over the next month they grow more anxious and start cc'ing you on everything.
  2. You praise one engineer warmly in front of the whole team for outstanding work; she looks down, deflects, and seems uncomfortable rather than pleased.
  3. You give a clear instruction, your report says "yes, of course," and two weeks later it hasn't been done — and they seem surprised you're surprised.
  4. Your Japanese boss tells you exactly how to format a report, in detail you find excessive, then checks the draft before it goes out.
  5. A strong team member leaves after eighteen months for a competitor; your local colleagues react with more disapproval than you'd expect for "a normal career move."

Part D — What Would You Do?

Real situations, several responses each. There's no single correct answer — pick the one closest to your instinct, then write why a culturally intelligent manager (or report) might choose differently.

1. The recognition moment. An engineer on your China team does standout work. You want to recognize it. Do you (a) praise her by name in the next all-hands so everyone sees great work; (b) say nothing, to avoid singling her out; (c) credit the whole team publicly and tell her privately how much her individual contribution meant; (d) give her a public award with a certificate? Which protects her standing with peers and gives her real recognition — and why does (a) so often backfire?

2. The flawed plan from above. Your new Chinese manager presents a roadmap in a team meeting; you spot what you're fairly sure is a real flaw. Do you (a) raise it clearly but politely in the meeting; (b) let it go entirely; (c) say nothing in the room, then raise it one-on-one afterward; (d) email the team your concerns that evening? What does each signal about you, and which makes you both useful and safe?

3. The vague delegation that stalled. You delegated a project to a report in Tokyo with "I'll leave the approach to you — you know best," meaning it as a vote of confidence. Three weeks later little has moved and they seem stuck. Do you (a) conclude they lack initiative; (b) give them a clearer brief — specific deliverable, standard, deadline — and a sanctioned scope of ownership; (c) take the project back; (d) ask "why didn't you just run with it?" What does the stall most likely mean, and which response fixes the actual cause?

4. The correction. A report from a face-conscious culture made a visible error that affected the team. You need to address it. Do you (a) raise it in the next team meeting so everyone learns from it; (b) wait for the annual review; (c) speak to them privately and soon, framed as a shared problem to solve; (d) send a firm email cc'ing your boss so it's documented? Which corrects the issue while keeping their dignity — and what does (a) teach the rest of the team to do?

Part E — Cultural Translation

For each managerial message, write two versions: a direct/low-context version (how you'd naturally say it to a Western report or boss) and a face-aware/high-context version (how you'd deliver it to protect the other person's standing). Notice how much substance survives and how much exposure you remove.

  1. (to a report) "This report has several mistakes — you need to fix it."
  2. (to a report) "I want you to handle this however you think is best."
  3. (to your Eastern boss) "I disagree with this plan — I think it has a flaw."
  4. (public recognition) "Mei did amazing work on this — everyone should learn from her."

Part F — Reflection & Extension

  1. The instinct you'd miss most. Of the four "managing" moves — give face, save face, give direction, build the person — which would be hardest for you to do naturally, and why? Write a page on the Western value underneath your resistance (privacy? meritocracy? a horror of micromanaging?) and what you might gain by loosening it in the right context.
  2. A reverse mirror. "It's just business" — the transactional Western view of employment, where leaving for a better offer needs no apology. Describe that norm as an anthropologist would, neutrally, with its internal logic, the way this book tries to describe Eastern loyalty. What does the transactional model optimize for, and what does it cost?
  3. Being managed. Imagine your next boss is from your chosen culture. Write the three behaviors you'd most need to change about how you "manage up" — and be honest about which one your ego will resist most.

✍️ Portfolio Builder. In your Cultural Intelligence Portfolio, create a section titled "Recognition & correction playbook" for your chosen culture. Build two short scripts you could actually use: (1) a face-giving script — how you'd recognize excellent individual work without exposing the person to their peers; and (2) a face-saving script — how you'd deliver a needed correction privately and softly. Then add a one-line confirmation script for getting past a possible "I heard you" yes ("can you walk me back through how you'll approach this?"). You'll refine these as later chapters add nuance — but having real words ready is what turns understanding into competence on the day it counts.