But Isn’t This Just Stereotyping?
A Story of Resistance, Reflection, and Readiness in Intercultural Learning
In one of my recent group trainings, we stood clustered around a large screen, examining a vivid visualization of cultural preferences. Laughter and murmurs filled the room as participants noticed how different — or surprisingly similar — their own values were compared to the patterns associated with a country they were about to engage with. The tool we used wasn’t there to judge or define, but to stimulate reflection:
How do I make decisions? How do I view time? What role does hierarchy play in my life?
The visualization showed individual preferences across several cultural dimensions — such as communication style, time orientation, or attitudes toward hierarchy — and compared them to typical national patterns. It sparked immediate insight and meaningful exchange.
Then came a pause.
One participant, arms crossed, leaned forward and said,
“I don’t like this at all. Isn’t this just promoting stereotypes? People are more than their culture.”
The room fell silent. Some nodded, others looked unsure. So we paused the session — and opened the floor for what turned into one of the most valuable discussions of the day.
On one side was the concern: that cultural mapping oversimplifies people. On the other: the perspective that, without some form of structured reflection, we risk ignoring culture altogether. That’s when I introduced a perspective that has repeatedly helped me navigate these tensions: Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) — a framework that explains why people respond to cultural difference so differently
Cultural Perception: From Ethnocentrism to Ethnorelativism
At the heart of Bennett’s model lies the continuum from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism.
Ethnocentrism means experiencing one’s own culture as central to reality. Other perspectives are judged by the standards of one’s own cultural values.
Ethnorelativism, by contrast, means understanding that cultures are equally complex and valid, and that one’s own cultural norms are not universal truths.
The DMIS outlines six developmental stages that describe how people grow from ethnocentric to ethnorelative mindsets:
1. Denial of Difference (Ethnocentric)
In this early stage, individuals are unaware of cultural differences or see them as unimportant. They might say things like:
“People are just people. Culture doesn’t really matter.”
Here, difference is invisible, or viewed as irrelevant. This can occur in highly homogeneous environments or when individuals lack exposure to diversity.
2. Defense Against Difference (Ethnocentric)
Cultural differences are now perceived — but seen as negative or threatening. One’s own culture is viewed as superior. This can also show up as reversal, where another culture is idealized at the expense of one’s own.
“Our way is better. They just don’t understand how things should work.”
3. Minimization of Difference (Ethnocentric)
People begin to acknowledge cultural differences — but assume that deep down, all humans are basically the same. There is a strong focus on commonality. This often reflects a well-meaning but ultimately limiting perspective.
“We may do things differently, but we all share the same values.”
Minimization can obscure real cultural differences in values, communication styles, and expectations — especially in professional settings.
4. Acceptance of Difference (Ethnorelative)
Now comes a pivotal shift. Individuals recognize that cultures differ not just in behavior, but in underlying values and worldviews — and that these are valid. There is curiosity without judgment.
“I see why they do things differently. It reflects a different logic, not a wrong one.”
5. Adaptation to Difference (Ethnorelative)
Here, people begin to intentionally adapt their communication and behavior to function effectively in different cultural contexts. This requires empathy, flexibility, and intercultural competence.
“When working with them, I soften my directness. That’s how trust is built there.”
6. Integration of Difference (Ethnorelative)
In this advanced stage, individuals integrate multiple cultural frameworks into their identity. They can switch perspectives and styles fluidly, and often feel at home in many cultures.
“My way of thinking is shaped by several cultures. They’re all part of me.”
Returning to the Training Room:
Resistance as a Mirror, Not a Wall
As our group continued its discussion, I realized the pushback against the tool wasn’t merely intellectual. It was emotional — a reaction from a place much deeper than analytical critique. The comment “This feels like stereotyping” echoed not only a concern about the tool, but an unease with the very idea of structured reflection on cultural difference. It was, as Bennett’s model would suggest, possibly a manifestation of Minimization — or even Denial — where cultural difference is either downplayed or rejected entirely as a factor in human interaction.
But here’s the critical point: such resistance is not unusual. In fact, it’s a pattern I’ve seen more often than not. Cultural reflection tools — even when carefully introduced as non-judgmental frameworks — can provoke discomfort. And that discomfort reveals far more than the tool itself ever could.
It tells us where people are on their journey.
In another training, a senior project manager outright refused to engage with the reflection tool, insisting that “good communication is about personality, not culture.” On the surface, it sounded progressive. But beneath it, there was an avoidance of complexity — and perhaps more importantly, a lack of readiness to manage difference. Because acknowledging difference — truly acknowledging it — comes with a cost:
It means accepting that your way might not work everywhere.
It means adapting. It means letting go of control.
This is the challenge at the heart of intercultural work:
Recognizing difference is only the first step. The real challenge is learning to accommodate it.
And that’s where the internal resistance often intensifies. Because once you see cultural differences clearly, the next logical question is:
Now what do I do with this insight?
That’s when the work becomes strategic, relational, and often personal. At this point in the training, I usually ask participants to reflect on and discuss questions such as:
Where do our differences create friction in our daily collaboration?
What aspects of my communication style might be misunderstood across cultures?
Am I willing to adapt my decision-making process to include other cultural expectations?
Which of my leadership behaviors are culturally specific — and which are flexible?
What can I do to build trust in a culture that values indirectness or hierarchy differently than I do?
How can I make space for other ways of managing time, conflict, or risk?
What is one behavior I could try adjusting to better fit the cultural context I’m working in?
These questions are not abstract. They demand real change. And that’s the heart of the resistance.
Because let’s be honest: Accepting difference isn’t hard because it’s cognitively complex. It’s hard because it’s existentially uncomfortable.
It threatens our sense of rightness. It challenges the idea that we’re already competent. And it exposes the illusion that our way of doing things is neutral or universal.
In intercultural leadership, acknowledging difference doesn’t end in theory — it calls us to redesign how we behave, how we resource projects, how we give feedback, and how we measure success. It challenges us to:
Reallocate time to accommodate different decision-making rhythms
Rethink KPIs in culturally diverse teams
Develop multiple communication styles depending on context
Accept slower processes in the name of deeper inclusion
This is not just about being “open-minded” — it’s about being strategically humble. It requires courage, flexibility, and above all, a willingness to admit:
I don’t know everything — and I may not even be aware of what I’m missing.
So when someone resists a cultural reflection tool, we don’t scold them. We listen. Because that moment of discomfort might be the first crack in the ethnocentric armor. It might be the beginning of a shift — from ethnocentrism, where we assume our norms are standard, to ethnorelativism, where we understand that every cultural lens has its own internal logic.
And this is where the magic happens:
When resistance is no longer a wall — but a mirror.
When denial gives way to dialogue.
When curiosity becomes more important than certainty.
That’s when the real work of global leadership begins.
Conclusion
From Knowing to Becoming
Cultural reflection is not about fitting people into boxes — it’s about breaking open the boxes we didn’t know we were in. It’s about holding up a mirror to our assumptions, our habits, and the invisible scripts that govern how we lead, communicate, and connect.
Yes, cultural tools can provoke resistance. And they should. Not because they are flawed — but because they confront us with the possibility that we are not as objective, fair, or flexible as we thought.
They challenge our comfort.
They ask us to choose growth over convenience.
And that is where real leadership begins.
In a world where collaboration crosses borders every day, the ability to recognize, reflect on, and respond to cultural difference is no longer a soft skill — it is a strategic imperative. Those who stop at “this feels like stereotyping” may miss the deeper opportunity: not to define others, but to transform ourselves.
Because intercultural competence is not a checklist.
It is not a knowledge set.
It is a way of being.
And the leaders who will thrive tomorrow are not those who insist on sameness — but those who are brave enough to navigate difference with humility, curiosity, and care.
So next time you feel that resistance rising — in yourself or someone else — don’t dismiss it. Lean into it. Because resistance is not the end of the road.
It is the beginning of becoming.
