Bridging Cultural Differences in Facilitation: Western vs. Asian (Japanese) Approaches

Have you ever noticed how facilitation styles vary across cultures?

Recently, the International Association of Facilitators (IAF) Japan Chapter co-hosted a collaborative workshop with my friend 张琳敏Michelle . Both of us are based in Asia and share a mutual interest in how culture affects communication and facilitation. While our journey is still ongoing, we’ve gathered some meaningful insights so far, and today, I’d like to share them with you!

There are various research frameworks that highlight cultural differences, such as the Culture Map and Hofstede's six dimensions. However, in this article, I’d like to share my personal reflections on how facilitation differs between Western and Asian cultures using the five dimensions of Aperian’s GlobeSmart Profile, which Michelle introduced to me.

While I refer to Asian culture, some of my comments are specifically based on Japanese culture, as most of my facilitation experience comes from Japan. I appreciate your understanding.

1. Independent vs. Interdependent

First and foremost, the most obvious difference is whether a culture is independent or interdependent. I have had the opportunity to participate in IAF conferences in both America and Asia, and I’ve noticed that American conferences tend to have more individual activities, while Asian conferences focus more on group-based activities.

Especially in Japan, we have many group activities in class. In addition, our culture encompasses the concept of 'joint responsibility'—if someone makes a mistake, the entire group is held accountable, and vice versa. As a result, our communication tends to be more mindful of the impact on others. Therefore, when facilitating group discussions in Japan, asking "What did you think of others’ opinions?" after someone speaks is a very common approach for me.

I heard an interesting story from another Japanese facilitator who had participated in a Lego Serious Play workshop. It seems that while participants are asked to share their individual opinions, none of them are asked how others' opinions influenced their own. By the way, Lego Serious Play originated in Denmark, which has an independent culture. This is interesting, but it feels a bit strange to me.

Furthermore, sharing group opinions after group activities is also common in Asian workshops. However, my impression of workshops in Western cultures is that participants have more opportunities to share their own views rather than the results of group discussions.

2. Egalitarianism vs. Status

The next indicator is about egalitarianism and status. While Western cultures tend to value egalitarianism, Asian cultures generally place more emphasis on status. Some may wonder how this relates to facilitation, but in Japan, carefully considering group composition when organizing a workshop—especially in corporate settings—is a common practice. Moreover, even taking participants' positions into account when forming groups is not unusual.

On the other hand, people from egalitarian cultures tend to value opportunities to interact with a diverse range of people during workshops.

In Japan, hierarchical relationships influence how people participate in workshops. Junior employees may hesitate to speak up in front of their superiors, and facilitators often need to create an environment where everyone feels comfortable sharing their thoughts.

Given this, the use of anonymity is also common in Asian cultures, such as through surveys or tools like Mentimeter. Even in face-to-face sessions, I sometimes use identical-colored Post-it notes or pens to make it less obvious who wrote what, depending on the participant composition.

In contrast, workshops in egalitarian cultures, as I have observed, tend to encourage open dialogue, regardless of rank.

3. Risk vs. Certainty

Rather than taking risks, people in Asian cultures tend to value certainty more. Among Asian countries, Japan ranks at the top in seeking certainty.

People reading this article would easily understand that facilitation requires an improvised and spontaneous approach by assessing the atmosphere. However, when facilitating workshops in Japanese companies, it’s not uncommon to be asked to provide a detailed program with a specific timeline during the preparation phase and to be warned not to go over time on the day of the workshop. After all, this is a country where an apology broadcast is made even if a train is just two minutes late.

Usually, we provide an overview of the program when hosting workshops, and some participants may not welcome unexpected surprises, such as suddenly dancing. Additionally, when introducing new methods or concepts, many participants tend to ask questions like: "Do you have any accurate data to support these methods?" or "Do you have specific examples from other companies?" Moreover, facilitation slides are expected to be well-visualized and easy to understand, which means that some preparation time is required.

On the other hand, the workshops I’ve participated in across America and Europe tend to be more flexible, with some activities being quite challenging, yet having a positive impact on participants. I would love to hear insights from those with more experience in Western cultures.

4. Direct vs. Indirect Communication

One of the most prominent differences between Western and Asian cultures is whether communication is direct or indirect. Indirect communication involves conveying one's true intentions subtly rather than stating them explicitly.

For example, if someone asks a Japanese person, "Can you join the next event?" and they reply, "I will go if I can," this actually means, "No, I won’t be able to make it." Similarly, if someone asks, "Can you take on this task?" and the response is, "It would be a bit difficult," this typically means, "No, I can’t do that."

If facilitators from Western cultures have the opportunity to host workshops with Asian participants, it is important to take into consideration that what is said may not always be meant literally.

When I conduct workshops for Asian participants, I usually start with activities that allow them to express their feelings indirectly before gradually moving toward more direct communication. For example, I might ask participants to express their stance by positioning themselves in a certain spot, choose a visual card before sharing their thoughts, or illustrate their opinions with an example before explaining them explicitly. These approaches are effective and more comfortable for those from cultures accustomed to indirect communication.

5. Task vs. Relationship

The last indicator is Task vs. Relationship, which refers to whether people tend to prioritize achieving goals and completing tasks over building relationships, or if they first value relationships before starting to work together.

Looking back at the American and Asian conferences I have attended, I noticed that workshops in America tend to allocate less time for self-introductions compared to those in Asia. In our culture, however, taking time for self-introductions at the beginning of workshops is common practice. It’s also common to have dinner or drinks with colleagues, as we place importance on understanding each other's personalities when working together.

I have worked with people from America, Canada, and Germany before, and I felt that their approach—working together first and then building a relationship—was a bit different from our culture. In Japan, it is not uncommon for friends to also be work colleagues, and that’s actually the case for me. Is this the same in Western cultures?

That concludes my observations based on Aperian’s GlobeSmart Profile. What are your thoughts so far? I believe there are even more differences in facilitation approaches depending on cultural diversity.

What are your experiences with facilitation across cultures? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

#Facilitation #InterculturalCommunication #WorkshopDesign #IAF #CulturalDifferences