As we have seen in previous articles, culture is a force that can influence virtually every aspect of work. Understanding the differential impacts that different cultures have equips us to navigate different business contexts effectively.

In this article, we’re going to zero in on the area of organisational structure. To illustrate, we will focus on the Indian context.

***

Should power in an organisation be distributed more equally (i.e. between all employees) or more unequally (i.e. concentrated in the hands of leaders)?

There is a subtle expectation many feel to say how it should be distributed more equally: how organisational cultures should strive to be more egalitarian, and organisational structures should strive to be flatter.

However, despite what people may say, cross-cultural organisational research has shown us for decades how that differs from the ground-level reality in many cultures.

For instance, social psychologist and pioneering cross-cultural researcher Geert Hofstede outlined the concept of “power distance” in the early 1970s. It refers to “the extent to which the less powerful members of organisations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally”.

More recently, INSEAD Business School professor Erin Meyer expanded on the work of Hofstede and others to develop the cultural dimension of Hierarchical/Egalitarian to classify cultures. Different cultures lie at different points on this continuum; some are more hierarchical, and others are more egalitarian.

In more hierarchical cultures, the relationship between leaders and subordinates is considered more “top-down”. There is a clear delineation between manager and employee because the “aura of authority” comes from the manager setting themselves clearly apart from the employee. Communication is expected to follow a set protocol based on hierarchical lines. There is also relatively greater acceptance of the unequal distribution of power and the decisions of the power holders.

In more egalitarian cultures, organisational structures are flatter. A leader strives more to be looked at as one among equals. Communication can skip hierarchical lines, and employees may communicate at 2-3 levels above them more frequently. In other words, power is expected to be more equally distributed.

Based on our analysis of the Indian business landscape, Indian organisational culture occupies an intriguing place along this continuum.

Most cross-cultural research places India on the more hierarchical end of the continuum. India is commonly regarded as having a “top-down” culture, where “effective” leaders are expected to have most of the answers to make decisions on behalf of a larger group. Frequently, articles like this Forbes editorial (about Andrew Horne, ex-MD at Xerox India) boldly proclaim, “Indian office hierarchy is way too strong for the modern world”.

While there is merit to this claim, it is worth invoking something British economist Joan Robinson at this point: “Whatever you can rightly say about India, the opposite is also true.”

India, as a culture, is anything but homogenous. There are immense cultural, linguistic, ethnic, religious, and other forms of diversity. And with this comes diversity in social beliefs and expectations – including those relevant to day-to-day working in an organisation. So, although hierarchy might be the norm, we believe that more detailed research is required to determine who falls within this norm and who falls outside it.

Moreover, it is also essential to recognise how the larger societal culture may differ from an organisation’s specific culture. For instance, you might work in an Indian organisation with a heavily egalitarian culture. The broader cultural norm is less relevant to your day-to-day working experience in such a situation.

But which organisational structure is more conducive to EDI initiatives?

The answer is nuanced. There is a truism that egalitarian cultures are better for EDI, but there seems to be a lack of research demonstrating this to be true.

Here’s a question for you to reflect on: Is it inclusive if you expect people from a hierarchical culture to run counter to cultural norms over hundreds of thousands of years? Isn’t it ethnocentric to think one approach is better?

We believe the most inclusive leadership to be the kind that allows its employees to perform their best. If I’m an employee from an East Asian culture who flourishes under a more paternalistic form of leadership, then perhaps the most inclusive thing to do as a leader would be to understand and operate by that framework.

On paper, the optimal organisational structure would be completely flexible to the needs of the organisation and its people. For instance, one that is hierarchical in times of uncertainty and chaos and egalitarian in times of exploration & growth.

We recognise, however, how that level of flexibility and agility is too complex and dynamic for big organisations to adhere to. If we compare running a smaller organisation to a larger one, it’s akin to the difference between steering a kayak and steering a cruise ship!

Thus, organisations beyond a certain size often struggle to be as inclusive to the cultural needs of their diverse employees and the communities they are based in. Because of its small size and connection to a local community, a local business always has a cultural advantage when delivering culturally sensitive leadership compared to a giant multinational. We aim to address this gap with our offerings on Cross-cultural competence.

So, we’ve spent some time unpacking how organisations are structured differently in different cultures. We’ve also learned about Indian organisational culture, norms, and idiosyncrasies. How can we, as leaders, apply these insights as leaders to enhance EDI in our organisations?

• Establish clear communication protocols for your team to ensure everyone is on the same page. By explicitly stating what is acceptable and what is not, you can prevent people from defaulting to their cultural norms and prevent misunderstandings. These protocols can include everything from determining when it’s appropriate to skip levels to defining who needs to be copied on certain types of emails.
  
  
• If you’re uncertain about which cultural dimension your team falls under, it’s always best to default to the strategies for hierarchical cultures. This approach can reduce the chances of inadvertently offending someone or violating a cultural taboo.
  
  

• To overcome this, you can clearly lay out what contribution you expect from which individuals and actively invite team members to speak up and share their ideas. You can also remove yourself from certain processes (e.g. ideation and brainstorming) and can instead ask for the results of such a process to be communicated to you. This way, the shadow you cast as a leader will be a more inclusive one to your peers.

• As a leader managing employees from a hierarchical culture (such as India), you have a unique responsibility to care for, mentor, coach, and teach your team. Getting honest and transparent feedback can sometimes be challenging when your team respects and defers to your authority too much.

How will you apply these insights to your workplace today?