Allyship is a key aspect of inclusion, and a growing number of organizations want to equip their global employees with this skill. At the same time, very real cultural differences between countries and regions mean that allyship can take various forms, and also that it resonates more immediately in some places than in others.
Ideas and practices related to most current approaches to allyship have U.S. and Western European roots, and are linked with egalitarian ideals that have evolved over many centuries. What does allyship currently look like for global companies with a presence in Asia, and what could be its future prospects? Some Asia-headquartered companies as well are asking what allyship could mean for them as they globalize.
Allyship is not a familiar practice for many Asian employees, and the term itself doesn’t have a direct translation in many Asian languages. Employees often need to start by looking up the meaning of allyship in their own language sources, where they encounter various definitions that may differ from the one provided by their company. The translations they find do not necessarily lend themselves to specific actions. Some descriptions of allyship from Japanese language sources include: “Allyship is to have conversations, listen, and continue to learn and engage”; “Allyship is to understand and support minority groups”; and “Allyship means a Straight Ally who supports gender minority groups such as LBGTQ colleagues.” In Hindi, the closest translations appear to be “support” or “friendship.” Common reactions to allyship that we have seen in the region include:
Many Asian cultures are status-oriented and interdependent, and people tend to be highly conscious of the attitudes and feelings of others in their team—along with their status in relation to fellow team members. The data-based country comparisons in the GlobeSmart Profile diagram below indicate that China, Japan, and India, for example, tend to have more status-oriented, hierarchical cultural settings than their peers in Western Europe and North America. Within a hierarchical environment, upward and horizontal communication patterns often tend to be relatively indirect (managers do usually have cultural permission to be very direct in communicating with subordinates). Defining allyship more passively as “tolerance” of differences is often perceived as being safer. Yet this can also mean that conflicts fester or are swept under the rug unless a manager takes the initiative to address them. An employee might even leave the company out of frustration with the lack of feedback—either opportunities to give it or to receive it—and others may wonder why they left.
Systemic factors can reinforce hierarchical organizational structures as well: seniority-based promotion systems, long-term employment, family-owned businesses, central government control, employment tied to vital benefits such as housing or health care, explicit or implicit restrictions on the advancement of women employees. Such factors have an influence on how people behave and interact with others at work.
Advice offered in allyship programs in the U.S. and Western Europe typically includes, “See something, say something.” “Speak up; be direct.” “Create brave and safe spaces.” “Balance ‘calling in’ with ‘calling out.’” Yet the reaction of many employees in Asia to such advice is likely to be fear and trepidation.
Some Asian employees may be willing to try using more direct communication methods with senior colleagues, but they usually need to acquire new skills for doing this, and their leaders must also be prepared to receive and respond constructively to such input. Indeed, there are even stories of employees from Europe or the U.S. who tried to implement their own company’s leadership directives—“Stand up for your opinion;” “Disagree and commit”—with more senior Asian colleagues and were met with stony silence and long-term retribution. “I thought I was following our company’s established practice, but the manager whose views I questioned in a group meeting then began to undermine my career and blocked my prospects for an expatriate assignment to the region.” Most people have heard the term, “loss of face,” but are not fully aware that embarrassing a more senior manager in a public setting can have enduring consequences.
So for would-be allies in Asia, what is the alternative to either passive tolerance or potentially career-limiting public confrontations?
Companies can begin to adapt their approach to allyship by recognizing what it means to live in a profoundly hierarchical society, where everyone is either senior or junior to others in the workplace based on factors such as age, rank, educational background, ethnicity, gender, or social class.
Allyship in a hierarchical context can take two primary forms depending on one’s role relative to others—the role of manager, and the role of a more junior employee. There are deep cultural roots for how leaders are supposed to behave with their employees. On the one hand, they have the clear right to give orders and tell others what to do, and the job of subordinates is to implement. On the other hand, leaders are also expected to listen very carefully, to incorporate team members’ input, and to develop the people on their team. Confucius, the ancient sage whose influence is still present in much of northeast Asia, is quoted as saying,
“If you wish to be established yourself, seek also to establish others. If you wish to be enlarged yourself, seek also to enlarge others.”
Such a close and interdependent link between the development of self and others means that leaders have both the practical and the moral obligation to look out for each person they manage. This could take the form of:
Employees who are more junior than their colleagues can serve as allies in other ways:
Addressing allyship based on one’s position in the organizational hierarchy can help even those from more egalitarian cultures. The reality is that plenty of hierarchy exists in U.S. and European organizations as well, from compensation to parking access to who says what in meetings. Meanwhile, leaders and employees in Asian firms who are accustomed to more status-oriented work environments may benefit from the selective adoption of egalitarian allyship practices that foster candid communication and wider inclusivity.
Cultural agility is essential in order to ally effectively with people around the world. While some might find the hierarchical workplace dynamics in most Asian companies to be onerous, there are also clear options for serving as an ally at any level. Both Asian and Western approaches to leadership generally agree that careful listening and a sincere commitment to the growth and development of others are crucial. Knowing how such growth and development can take place in hierarchical as well as egalitarian environments is part of the shared learning process that we all need in order to ally effectively with colleagues at home and abroad.
