What People Get Wrong About Culture | Ibrahima Seck
There is a persistent tendency, particularly within education and corporate training, to treat culture as something that can be reduced to a set of identifiable traits. It is often presented as a framework through which people can be categorized, predicted, and, ultimately, managed. One learns that certain nationalities are punctual, others indirect, some hierarchical, others egalitarian. These distinctions, while not entirely without merit, create the impression that culture is something fixed and observable, a kind of external label that can be applied to individuals with a reasonable degree of accuracy. What became evident in this conversation with Ibrahima Seck is that this assumption, while convenient, is fundamentally flawed. Culture, as he articulates it, does not describe who people are. It describes what people expect.
This distinction, though subtle, carries significant implications. Ibrahima’s own background resists any straightforward categorization. Born in Senegal, shaped by Portuguese heritage, and raised in Germany, his early life was characterized by the need to move between different cultural environments without necessarily having the language to describe what he was doing. This form of navigation was not initially conscious or theoretical; it was practical, driven by the demands of everyday interaction. Only later, through both professional experience and formal study, did he begin to articulate these dynamics in a more structured way. His encounter with established frameworks of cultural analysis provided a vocabulary for experiences he had already lived, allowing him to move from implicit understanding to explicit interpretation.
The turning point in his professional development appears to have emerged through a moment of dissonance. While working as a global trainer in a corporate environment, he delivered the same leadership training across multiple countries within a relatively short period. The content remained consistent, yet the feedback varied significantly depending on the context. Participants in France, Algeria, and Sri Lanka each identified elements of the training that they considered incompatible with their local environments. Importantly, these objections did not occur at the same points in the material. What was accepted in one context was questioned in another. This pattern revealed a limitation in the assumption that leadership principles, once defined, could be universally applied. It also exposed a deeper issue: the expectation that individuals would interpret and respond to the same input in similar ways.
It is at this juncture that Ibrahima introduces his central argument. The problem is not that people behave differently across cultures, although they do. The problem lies in the assumption that these differences can be fully explained by attributing fixed characteristics to entire populations. To suggest that “Germans are punctual” or “Indians are flexible with time” is to overlook the variability that exists within any given society. More importantly, it obscures the underlying mechanism that governs interaction: the shared expectations that define what is considered appropriate within a specific environment. In Germany, punctuality is not a universal personal trait, but it is a widely held expectation. Individuals may deviate from it, but they do so against a backdrop in which timeliness is valued. In other contexts, where external conditions such as infrastructure or social norms differ, the expectation itself may be less rigid.
This shift from behavior to expectation allows for a more nuanced understanding of cross-cultural interaction. It also reframes the concept of cultural awareness. In many cases, what is presented as awareness is little more than a collection of surface-level observations. Individuals are taught to recognize visible differences such as forms of greeting, dining etiquette, or communication styles and to adjust their behavior accordingly. While such knowledge may help to avoid minor social missteps, it does not address the deeper challenge of interpreting how one’s actions are perceived by others. Ibrahima emphasizes that the critical skill is not the ability to identify cultural markers, but the capacity to anticipate expectations and to respond to them in a way that facilitates mutual understanding.
The consequences of failing to do so are illustrated in his account of managing a multicultural team in Dubai. Having been trained in a German context, he adopted a direct approach to feedback, operating under the assumption that clarity and objectivity were sufficient to ensure effective communication. Within a short period, several members of his team reported him to human resources, citing discomfort with his style of interaction. From his perspective, the feedback he provided was accurate and professionally appropriate. From their perspective, it was perceived as overly blunt and, in some cases, disrespectful. This divergence highlights the limitations of applying a single communicative framework across different cultural contexts. What is interpreted as efficiency in one setting may be experienced as insensitivity in another.
The resolution of this situation did not involve abandoning his approach entirely, but rather adapting it to align more closely with the expectations of his team. This process required a degree of humility, particularly in recognizing that his previous success within one cultural framework did not guarantee effectiveness in another. It also underscored a broader principle: competence in cross-cultural environments is not achieved through the imposition of one’s own norms, but through the willingness to adjust those norms in response to the context in which one operates.
This principle extends beyond professional settings into everyday interactions. Ibrahima advocates for a posture of openness when entering a new cultural environment, emphasizing the importance of recognizing one’s position as an outsider. The appropriate response to unfamiliar practices is not to evaluate them against one’s own standards, but to seek understanding. When corrected, the instinct to defend or justify one’s behavior should be replaced with a willingness to learn. This approach is grounded in the assumption that local practices are not arbitrary, but are shaped by historical, social, and practical considerations that may not be immediately visible to an external observer.
At the same time, he acknowledges that complete understanding is neither possible nor necessary. Cultural interaction is inherently imperfect, and misinterpretations are inevitable. What matters is not the elimination of error, but the manner in which it is addressed. The ability to recover from misunderstanding, to adjust one’s approach, and to maintain a sense of respect for the other party is more significant than the avoidance of mistakes altogether. This perspective challenges the notion that cultural competence is a fixed state that can be achieved through study alone. Instead, it is presented as an ongoing process of negotiation, shaped by experience and reflection.
An additional layer of complexity is introduced when considering the role of assumption in cross-cultural perception. As Ibrahima notes, individuals rely on cognitive shortcuts to make sense of unfamiliar situations. These shortcuts, while efficient, can lead to inaccurate generalizations, particularly when they are based on outdated or incomplete information. The persistence of such assumptions is illustrated through reference to broader global perceptions, where individuals often hold views of other countries that reflect conditions from decades past rather than current realities. This disconnect between perception and reality underscores the importance of continuous engagement and the updating of one’s understanding in response to new information.
Ultimately, the conversation with Ibrahima Seck invites a reconsideration of what it means to understand culture. Rather than viewing it as a set of characteristics to be memorized, it is more accurately understood as a framework of expectations that shape interaction. This framework is not static; it evolves over time and varies across contexts. Effective navigation within it requires not only knowledge, but also adaptability, self-awareness, and a willingness to engage with uncertainty. In this sense, cultural competence is less about mastery and more about orientation: an ongoing effort to position oneself in relation to others in a way that allows for meaningful and respectful exchange.
