The culture in this country is different.

Daisy Torres
4 days ago
3 min read

Read the article in English here: Changing Culture Anywhere | LinkedIn

Article originally published on LinkedIn .

If you lead global organizations, you've probably heard (or said) some of these phrases: "What works in Germany doesn't work in Ghana." "Asian hierarchies are too different from American egalitarianism."

After 150 implementations of Mission-Directed Workteams across 6 continents, the evidence points in another direction: It's not geography that decides whether transformation works. It's how we address universal human needs.

The Myth That Holds Us Back

The idea that “culture is local” sounds sophisticated and respectful. It acknowledges differences and avoids the arrogance of “copy-paste” solutions.

The problem is when it becomes an alibi for three very dangerous ideas:

“It’s too complex to scale this to other cultures.”
“Our culture cannot support that level of excellence.”
“Our people are not ready for empowerment and responsibility.”

When we look at the results, these phrases speak more to our biases than to the reality of the people.

This is what happens when you don't stop and still try to transform yourself.

In Denmark, a wheel manufacturing company , in an organized and egalitarian society, went from apathy to 322 improvement proposals from long-standing employees.
In Uganda, Nice House of Plastics (founded by Dr. James Mulwana in 1970), a factory with low morale and language barriers, achieved over 98% attendance and a culture of its own: “The Mulwana Way”.

Opposing contexts, same pattern: When you offer structured empowerment and visible recognition, people respond.

The same applies between “old” hierarchies and modern democracies:

In Taiwan, Imperial Tobacco Taiwan , ITTM, with a hierarchical structure, multiplied improvement ideas by more than 20 when a clear space was opened for the voice of the front line.
In Laos, ( Laos Tobacco Limited ) leaders who “listen to learn” achieved more than a year without lost-time accidents and more than 1,700 improvement ideas.

Another example:

From Economic Powers to Developing Economies Nestlé Switzerland (Romont): 45 employees, high-tech operation 24/7 since 1968

Result: 11% reduction in machine downtime, structured problem-solving culture
Focus: technical precision with systematic team commitment

Century Bottling Uganda (SABCO): operating in an economy with a GNP per capita of $303

Result: +228% cases per person, 60% reduction in workforce while improving performance
Approach: same systematic approach adapted to resource limitations

Common thread: It wasn't culture that was blocking change. It was the design of the systems.

The “human operating system” that does cross borders

In all contexts we saw the same four impulses, expressed in different ways:

Meaning and purpose
Voice and influence
Growth and mastery
Dignity and respect

The conclusion: The principles are universal; the way they are expressed is cultural.

What changes (and what doesn't) when adapting

Successful implementations don't "skip" the culture; they use it to their advantage:

In high-context settings (lots of subtext, tradition, symbols), stories, rituals, and visual management work best.
In low-context (direct, data-oriented) contexts, clear indicators, structured methods, and explicit logic work best.
In hierarchical systems , change enters respecting formal authority, and then opens up spaces of influence.
In egalitarian systems , change takes off when peer leadership multiplies.

The essence remains the same: empowering the front line, making contributions visible, and creating a safe environment for experimentation and learning.

The problem isn't the culture, it's the approach

What usually kills transformations is not "culture", but four common mistakes:

Copying methods instead of principles.
Underestimating people (“they’re not ready”).
Exaggerate the barriers (“hierarchy prevents it”).
Turning stereotypes into a diagnosis (“people don’t talk here”, “only individual achievement matters here”).

When leaders in Brazil, Peru, Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay, China, and India applied the same empowerment program adapted to their local way of working, they reached the same conclusion: The need for meaning, contribution, and ownership is universal.

The uncomfortable question for global leaders

Perhaps the real dilemma is not: “Does our culture support excellence?”

The most honest question is: “Does our approach to excellence support our culture?”

If we truly believe that:

People want meaningful work.
The teams want to solve problems.
Everyone wants dignity, learning, and growth.

Then the task changes. It's no longer "Can I come here?", but:

“How do we adapt this principle to the local communication style?”
“What would empowerment look like in our specific context?”
"What systems do we design so that dignity and growth do not depend on individual heroes, but on the way we work?"

In many of the contexts considered “most difficult,” the results were the most spectacular. Precisely because there was a hunger for respect, structure, and real opportunities for growth.

We love to hear your voice, share your experience with sustainable transformation in the face of temporary change:

For you, as a global leader: Which of your “truths” about local culture turned out to be a universal human need that was misinterpreted? I’d love to read in the comments what you’ve discovered works everywhere… and what you’ve learned absolutely requires local adaptation.