Case Study 1 — The Respectful Employee Who Looked Like a Follower

This case shows the first trap of low power-distance culture: how the visible deference that signals respect and good character in a high power-distance culture can be misread as lack of confidence and leadership in a Western workplace — quietly capping a talented person's career.

Composite: Bayu, a marketing analyst who moved from Jakarta, Indonesia, to a company in Canada.

The situation

Bayu was raised in a high power-distance culture where respect for seniority is a defining virtue. He shows that respect the way he was taught: he waits to be invited before speaking, never contradicts a senior in public, addresses managers carefully, defers to his boss's judgment, and does what he is asked without pushing back. By the standards he grew up with, Bayu is an excellent, respectful employee — exactly the kind a manager should treasure.

The "before"

A year in, Bayu is passed over for a team-lead role that goes to a less experienced colleague. Confused, he asks his manager, Sarah, for feedback. Sarah, trying to be kind but direct (Chapter 3), says: "Bayu, your work is really strong. But honestly, I don't always know what you think. You rarely speak up in meetings, you never push back on my ideas, and you wait to be told what to do. For a lead role, I need someone who shows initiative and brings their own point of view."

Bayu is stunned and a little hurt. I was being respectful. I deferred to you because you're my manager. I didn't push back because that would be disrespectful. And now the very things I did to honor you are the reasons I'm passed over?

He is right to be confused. Everything he did was correct — in his home operating system.

What is actually happening

Bayu has fallen into the over-deference trap that the chapter warns about. In a high power-distance culture, his behavior reads as respect, humility, and good character. In Sarah's low power-distance culture, the identical behavior reads through a different lens:

  • Waiting to be invited to speak → reads as passivity or disengagement.
  • Never contradicting a senior → reads as having no opinions of your own.
  • Doing exactly what he's told, no more → reads as lacking initiative.
  • Visible deference → reads as low confidence, not high respect.

Sarah is not being unfair, and she is not blind to Bayu's talent — she explicitly praised his work. But in her system, leadership is demonstrated by engagement: voicing views, challenging ideas (respectfully), and acting without waiting for permission. Bayu's respect was invisible to her as respect; it registered only as absence. Recall the chapter's hard truth: in a low power-distance culture, the respectful move is often to step closer (speak up, engage, disagree with reasons), not further away — the exact reverse of his home system, where respect means stepping back.

The cruelty, again, is that Bayu did nothing wrong by his own culture's standards. The gap is pure operating-system mismatch.

The "after"

Bayu does not abandon his respectful nature — that is a strength, and his courtesy continues to serve him well. He recalibrates how respect is expressed, treating "engagement" as a new skill to add:

  1. He prepares one contribution per meeting in advance — an observation, a question, or a suggestion — so that speaking up does not depend on overcoming the moment's hesitation (Chapter 15's strategy).
  2. He starts offering his view when asked, for real: when Sarah says "what do you think?", he gives an actual opinion, not just agreement.
  3. He practices respectful upward disagreement: "I see it a bit differently — here's a risk I'd flag," learning that, far from offending Sarah, this raises her opinion of him.
  4. He takes initiative on small things without waiting to be told — proposing a fix, volunteering for a task — which his system reads as leadership potential.

Crucially, Bayu keeps his deep courtesy and his ability to honor others; he simply adds the engagement behaviors his new culture reads as competence. Within a year, he leads a team. His character did not change. The expression of his respect changed — from silent deference to engaged contribution.

Scripts for "engaged respect" (keep these). - Volunteering a view when asked: "I have a thought on that — can I share it?" - Respectful upward disagreement: "That's a fair point. One risk I'd flag is [X]. Could we consider [alternative]?" - Showing initiative: "I noticed [problem] — would it help if I took a first pass at fixing it?" - Speaking up early in a meeting: "Quick thought before we move on…" (Speaking once makes the next time easier.)

The lesson

In a low power-distance culture, respect is shown by engagement, not by withdrawal. The deference that marks you as admirable in a high power-distance culture can mark you as passive in a Western one — not because you did anything wrong, but because the same behavior carries the opposite meaning across the gap. Keep your courtesy; recalibrate its expression. Speak up, offer real opinions, disagree respectfully, take initiative. That is how respect becomes visible in a system that reads silence as absence.

Discussion questions

  1. List the four behaviors Sarah criticized and, for each, give its intended meaning (Bayu's culture) and its received meaning (Sarah's culture).
  2. Is Sarah being unreasonable? Could she have read Bayu more generously — and whose job is it to bridge the gap?
  3. Bayu "kept his courtesy but changed its expression." What is the difference between that and assimilation?
  4. The chapter says respect here is shown by stepping closer, not back. Why is that the hardest part to internalize for someone from a high power-distance culture?
  5. Which of Bayu's four new habits (or scripts) would be hardest for you? Why?
  6. Journal link: Where might you be over-deferring in a way that reads as passivity? Pick one meeting this week and prepare one contribution in advance.