Cultural Intelligence is a Structural Concern
Characterizing cultural intelligence solely as interpersonal or behavioral is insufficient.
The Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot is one of the world’s most prestigious competitions in international arbitration and commercial law, drawing teams from over 80 countries each year to Vienna, Austria, and Hong Kong, SAR.
Clashing Communication Styles
During this year’s Vis moot competition, a group of participants from the United States debated how best to approach their opposing team, which was representing Japan. One competitor from the United States proposed a direct and immediate approach, intending to save time and establish clarity. This perspective, though seemingly pragmatic, revealed the underlying assumption that directness is both efficient and universally valued.
Directness is not always clarity. In high-context cultures, it may be perceived as a disruption.
In high-context cultures such as Japan’s, communication is less reliant on explicit statements and more on shared understanding, relationship dynamics, and subtle nuances. Directness in such settings may be perceived as disregard for interpersonal harmony or protocol, rather than an expression of clarity.
Cultural Intelligence Is Not a Soft Skill
The moment revealed a deeper structural divergence underlying what first appeared to be a tactical disagreement. Cultural intelligence was treated as a soft variable, something optional, perhaps secondary to logic or efficiency. In truth, it is structural. It informs how trust is built, how risk is perceived, and how decisions are made. It determines whether silence signifies assent or resistance, whether hierarchy invites deference or open critique, and whether formal mechanisms or informal relationships carry more weight.
See our research post on how dispute resolution clauses reflect cultural expectations in international joint ventures.
Reading Between the Lines
Misalignments are often obscured and not immediately discernible. The divergence between one team’s underlying assumptions and another’s expectations does not typically manifest through legal reasoning or financial projections. Instead, it becomes apparent only through careful attention to tone, pacing, and framing.
And when unacknowledged, misalignments can lead to confusion, disengagement, or even reputational damage.
The most effective international teams are those that anticipate and accommodate differences. In our case, what initially appeared to be a tactical disagreement revealed deeper differences in assumptions about communication, initiative, and deference. The lesson from this small but telling moment in the moot was about structure. And, like many structural insights, it emerged from a mismatch that nearly passed unnoticed.
To treat cultural intelligence as structural is to understand that it forms the foundation of cross-border ventures. Such understanding requires looking beyond the façade as cultural dynamics often operate beneath visible behaviors and formal interactions. Those who fail to recognize cultural intelligence as structural may find their merited arguments go unheard, even when delivered fluently.