High-context and low-context cultures are concepts developed by Edward T. Hall to explain differences in communication styles across societies. High-context cultures are often associated with many Asian and African societies, they rely heavily on relationships, shared understanding, and nonverbal cues. Communication is often indirect, with meaning shaped by context and social dynamics. Low-context cultures, common in the United States and much of Northern Europe, favour direct, explicit communication where clarity and individual accountability are prioritised. While no culture fits entirely into one category, understanding these differences can strengthen cross-cultural communication, leadership, and inclusion.
More from Womenomics
When you visit a doctor, they usually follow a three-part process:
1. Examination
2. Diagnosis
3. Prescription
Imagine going to a doctor with stomach pain and they immediately start writing a prescription without examining you or understanding the root cause of the problem. I think most people would question their credibility. Yet in leadership and organisational life, people often jump straight to solutions before taking the time to properly examine or diagnose the issue. Sustainable change rarely happens without first understanding what is really going on beneath the surface.
Another life metaphor
One of the challenges with inclusion is that people who experience it consistently may not notice it at all. In many ways, inclusion operates like privilege. Those who have always felt included rarely have to think about what inclusion means because it has become their normal experience. A useful way to understand this is through the lens of health. Most people do not spend much time talking about being healthy because health is experienced as the default state. We become aware of health when something goes wrong, and the same is true for inclusion. People rarely notice inclusion when it is present, but they immediately recognise exclusion when it appears.
BCCD at Womenomics
Inclusion is often misunderstood because, unlike diversity, it is not always visible. Diversity is about representation, what we can see and measure. Inclusion is about experience, how people feel, whether they are heard, respected, valued, and able to participate fully. I think diversity is often the outcome organisations seek, while inclusion is the behaviour and environment that make those outcomes possible.
Kübler-Ross model
The “five stages of grief” are often used as a framework for understanding how people process significant loss, transition, or major life change. These stages are commonly described as denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Denial can involve shock or emotional numbness. Anger may appear as frustration, resentment, or pain. Bargaining often shows up through “what if” thinking, while depression can involve sadness, withdrawal, or emotional heaviness. Acceptance is not about forgetting or eliminating the loss, but about finding a way to move forward.
At the same time, grief is rarely linear, so people do not move through these emotions in a fixed sequence or within a predictable timeframe. I think grief is far more fluid and deeply personal than a checklist of stages. Individuals may revisit emotions multiple times, experience several at once, or process them in entirely different ways depending on context and experience. Understanding this is important because it allows us to approach both ourselves and others with greater patience, empathy, and compassion.
We are growing together
I think coaching is fundamentally human. While AI can process information, identify patterns, and generate responses, I do not believe it can fully replicate the depth of human connection that effective coaching requires. At its core, coaching is about presence, it is about creating a space where people feel seen, heard, and comfortable enough to think openly and honestly. And the quality of that connection matters.
Great coaching does not come from having all the answers or relying on memory and expertise alone. It comes from being fully present with another person and engaging in a genuine partnership. I do not see coaching as an expert speaking to a learner, I see it as a thinking partnership. My role is not to tell people what to do, but to help intelligent, capable individuals think more clearly, challenge assumptions, and navigate complexity in a way that may be difficult to do alone. Technology will continue to evolve, and the human need for trust, connection, and meaningful conversation will remain.
Low variance = low risk
Inspired by Joseph Fishkin’s book, “Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity”
When organisations define equal opportunity as applying exactly the same criteria to everyone, they often overlook an important reality: a narrow set of criteria tends to reward the small percentage of people who are already best positioned to succeed within that system. The result is that many talented individuals, whose strengths may not align perfectly with those predefined measures, remain overlooked.
If organisations genuinely want diversity of thought, background, and potential, they need to rethink how opportunity is structured. One powerful approach is hiring in groups rather than treating every hire as a high-risk individual decision. When organisations hire only one person, the mindset often becomes: “Let us choose the safest option and hope nothing goes wrong.” This naturally favours familiarity, predictability, and low-risk choices. Yet innovation, inclusion, and long-term organisational growth rarely emerge from repeatedly selecting the lowest-variance option. Expanding opportunity requires creating systems that recognise broader forms of talent, capability, and potential.
I don't see race
Race is often one of the first visible differences the human brain notices when people encounter one another. While many individuals have personal relationships across gender differences, not everyone has had meaningful relationships across racial or cultural differences. As a result, perceptions and assumptions about race are often shaped indirectly through media, institutions, history, and social conditioning rather than lived experience. I think over time, people internalise messages about both their own group and others.
Research using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) has shown that many individuals, regardless of racial background, can unconsciously absorb and reproduce societal stereotypes. For example, studies have found that many White participants more readily associate positive attributes with whiteness, while some Black participants may also internalise negative stereotypes about Blackness due to prolonged exposure to the same cultural narratives. This is why conversations about unconscious bias require both personal reflection and structural awareness. Bias is not simply about individual prejudice; it is also shaped by the environments, systems, and messages that influence how people see themselves and others.
Human decision making
Bias is both an individual and a structural issue as it is embedded in how organisations define talent, make hiring decisions, assess performance, manage promotions, design succession planning, and distribute opportunities. Focusing solely on individual intentions risks oversimplifying a far more complex organisational challenge. I think the most effective solutions come from redesigning decision-making processes, increasing transparency, and building systems that reduce the opportunity for bias to influence outcomes. Sustainable change happens when organisations move beyond awareness and begin embedding equity and accountability into the structures that shape everyday leadership and organisational behaviour.
Awareness is not enough
Unconscious bias education can be valuable for both individuals and organisations because it increases awareness of how bias operates and introduces the scientific research behind it. At its best, this type of training can create motivation and open dialogue around the need to address unwanted bias within organisational cultures. However, awareness alone is rarely enough to create sustained behavioural change. I think understanding that bias exists does not automatically equip people with the skills, systems, or accountability required to reduce its impact in practice. This is why many bias initiatives struggle to produce measurable long-term outcomes.
Cognitive component vs. bias
What’s the difference between stereotyping and diagnosis bias?
Stereotyping involves assigning characteristics, behaviours, or assumptions to someone based on the group they belong to. It is a mental shortcut that simplifies people into categories such as gender, ethnicity, age, nationality, profession, or social background. Stereotypes are often shaped by culture, media, upbringing, and past experiences, and they can influence expectations before we have meaningful evidence about the individual.
I think diagnosis bias is slightly different. It is the tendency to form an early judgement about a person, situation, or problem and then interpret everything through that initial conclusion. Once the label has been applied, people often stop exploring alternative explanations. In leadership and organisational settings, this can lead to unfair assumptions about capability, motivation, personality, or performance.
For example, stereotyping might sound like: “Young employees are entitled.” Diagnosis bias might sound like: “This employee is difficult,” followed by interpreting every future interaction as proof of that judgement. I think the key difference is that stereotyping is group-based, while diagnosis bias is conclusion-based. Both reduce curiosity, limit understanding, and can negatively affect leadership, decision-making, inclusion, and relationships. Emotionally intelligent leaders learn to slow down their assumptions, remain curious, and separate observation from interpretation.
““Freedom is the capacity to pause between stimulus and response.””
Resistance is real
Many people still perceive inclusion work as “soft” or disconnected from business performance, often assuming it may negatively impact the bottom line. In my experience, this is why it is important to anchor DEIB work in outcomes that matter to the organisation. This is not only about creating environments where people feel valued, although that matters. It is also about strengthening talent acquisition, improving retention, enhancing collaboration, and increasing diversity of thought.
I think organisations that create space for different perspectives are often better positioned to innovate, challenge assumptions, and protect themselves against groupthink. The conversation around inclusion becomes far more effective when leaders understand that it is not separate from performance and culture, but directly connected to both.
So Danish!
When we encounter unfamiliar social situations or people who appear different from what we perceive as familiar, the brain can respond with heightened alertness. Research in neuroscience suggests that the amygdala, a region associated with threat detection and emotional processing, becomes more active when we are exposed to uncertainty or unfamiliarity. From an evolutionary perspective, this response once served an important survival function. Human beings evolved to quickly assess potential threats in their environment, helping our species respond to danger and uncertainty.
In modern society, however, these instinctive responses can still appear even when no real threat exists. We may notice subtle physical reactions such as increased tension, a faster heart rate, or a feeling of discomfort when confronted with the unexpected. I think this is important because many of our unconscious biases operate below the level of conscious awareness. Without reflection, we can mistake familiarity for safety and difference for risk. The challenge for leaders is not to pretend these instincts do not exist, but to become aware of them so they do not unconsciously shape decision-making, relationships, and organisational culture. Awareness creates the possibility for more thoughtful, objective, and inclusive leadership.
““Letting go of fear requires openness, curiosity, vulnerability, courage and resilience.””
Leadership is lonely
Unconscious bias is often shaped by what we have been repeatedly exposed to throughout our lives. Our brains absorb patterns, social norms, and behavioural expectations, then unconsciously use them to make rapid judgments and assumptions. For example, men are often associated with leadership, assertiveness, strength, ambition, and authority. Women, by contrast, are frequently associated with being supportive, emotional, nurturing, sensitive, or accommodating. In practical terms, this creates a familiar pattern: men are more readily perceived as “taking charge,” while women are more readily perceived as “taking care.”
I don’t think that these assumptions are not always conscious or intentional. They are reinforced through culture, media, workplaces, education, and social conditioning over time. The result is that people are often unconsciously redirected toward the patterns and expectations the brain already recognises as familiar. This is one of the reasons unconscious bias can continue to influence hiring, leadership perception, promotions, and everyday workplace interactions, even in environments that believe they are operating objectively.
Small acts of complicity
We created a space where people feel safe enough to be vulnerable, honest, and transparent without fear of judgement. A welcoming environment where individuals can speak openly about the realities of everyday challenges, whether personal or professional, and feel genuinely heard in the process. Too often, people feel pressure to appear composed, capable, and unaffected. Spaces that encourage openness create a different dynamic. They allow people to lower their guard, have more authentic conversations, and engage with each other in a more meaningful way.
Psychological safety is not about removing accountability or avoiding difficult conversations. It is about creating an environment where people feel respected enough to contribute honestly, ask for support when needed, and share experiences without feeling dismissed or isolated. When people feel safe to speak openly, connection strengthens, trust develops, and conversations become more constructive and human.
““There are two types of people in this world: people that lift and people that lean. Surround yourself with the lifters.””
Fill in the blanks
Research consistently shows that gender diversity at senior levels is associated with stronger organisational performance, including metrics such as return on equity and shareholder value. The greatest benefits often emerge in environments that require complex decision-making, innovation, and adaptability. The value of diversity is not simply about adding one different perspective into a group. What becomes important is how the presence of different experiences, backgrounds, and ways of thinking changes the behaviour of the entire team.
In homogeneous groups, there is often a tendency to reinforce what people have in common. In more diverse environments, individuals tend to feel greater permission to contribute perspectives that challenge assumptions, introduce new ideas, and broaden the discussion. I think this is where diversity becomes strategically valuable as it improves the quality of thinking, reduces the risk of groupthink, and strengthens collective decision-making. At the same time, human bias and unconscious heuristics often pull organisations in the opposite direction, towards familiarity, similarity, and perceived comfort. This is why building genuinely inclusive teams requires intentional leadership, not just aspiration.
Reward chemicals
We are constantly exposed to an overwhelming volume of information, far more than we can consciously process. While the exact figures vary, cognitive science suggests that our conscious attention is limited to a very small fraction of the data we receive. The gap is managed by unconscious processes, a set of mental shortcuts and heuristics that allow us to function efficiently throughout the day. These mechanisms are essential, but they also introduce bias. In a workplace context, this has direct implications for how we interpret information, make decisions, and evaluate others. And for this reason I think it’s critical to create space for reflection. Taking the time to pause, think, and question our assumptions allows us to better understand where bias may be influencing our judgment. Without that awareness, it becomes difficult to move towards more objective and balanced decision-making.
All or nothing is a trap
You cannot force others to recognise your value, and you have a choice not to let external opinions define your sense of worth. Anchoring your self-perception internally allows for greater stability and focus. It is also important not to tie your sense of progress or fulfilment solely to outcomes or the actions of others. Sustainable motivation is built by recognising effort and consistency, not only results.
I think from a behavioural perspective, reinforcement matters as dopamine plays a role in motivating behaviour by reinforcing actions and encouraging repetition. When you acknowledge and reward consistent effort even in small ways then you will strengthen the habits that lead to long-term progress. And over time, this shifts the focus from chasing outcomes to valuing the process, which is ultimately what drives meaningful and sustained performance.
What's in it for me?
There is often a natural suspicion of self-interest in commercial interactions. People are increasingly attuned to intent, and they can distinguish between transactions driven by immediate gain and those shaped by genuine consideration. When we reflect on the most meaningful customer experiences, they are rarely defined by how easily a transaction was completed. Instead, they are shaped by moments where someone went beyond what was required, and often at a cost to themselves and without an obvious personal benefit. I think these actions build trust as they signal authenticity, shift perception, and create a lasting impression that extends far beyond the immediate interaction.
““The team you build is the company you build.””
There's place for everyone
How many problem solvers are you developing within your team?
High-performing teams are built around individuals who take ownership, operate with low ego, and focus on solving problems rather than seeking recognition. These are professionals who understand their role, execute consistently, and contribute without the need for constant validation. They bring clarity, sound judgment, and accountability to their work. They do not require close supervision, nor do they create additional complexity for others to manage. Instead, they enable progress and elevate the standard of the team.
I think when individuals require continuous correction, lack ownership, or demonstrate inconsistent judgment, it places a disproportionate burden on leadership and limits overall performance. Effective leaders are intentional about surrounding themselves with people who are reliable, self-directed, and committed to delivering high-quality work. This is what creates momentum and sustainable results.