Rethinking Leadership Assessment in Southeast Asia: Why Western Lenses Don’t Always Fit

When multinational companies expand into Southeast Asia, many bring along leadership frameworks and evaluation criteria developed in Europe or the United States. These frameworks often define what “good leadership” looks like: decisiveness, direct communication, assertiveness, and strong individual accountability.

While these traits may resonate in a Western cultural context, they don’t always translate seamlessly into Southeast Asia. The region is not a single, homogenous market—it is made up of 10 countries, each with unique histories, cultures, and social norms. As a result, leadership behaviors vary significantly across the region.

The Risk of Cultural Filters

Western managers often assess Southeast Asian leaders through their own cultural lenses. For instance:

• A Thai manager who avoids direct confrontation may be seen as “indecisive” when in fact they are demonstrating cultural respect for harmony. I know Thai leaders who speak calmly and softly who were misunderstood as lacking leadership for a lack of aggressiveness.

• A Filipino leader who emphasizes consensus-building and familial-style relationships may be viewed as “too soft,” though this approach builds loyalty and long-term team cohesion.

• An Indonesian manager who communicates in a high-context manner—using subtle cues rather than blunt words—may be wrongly judged as “unclear” or “lacking transparency.”

• A Vietnamese leader, who shows deference to seniority and authority, may be considered “too hierarchical,” while in reality, they are aligning with deeply ingrained cultural norms.

In each case, behaviors that are deeply effective in local contexts risk being misinterpreted as signs of weak leadership when judged against Western expectations. It is not only western leaders who make these mistakes. Some Singaporean managers having been trained in western ideas also stumble when taking on regional roles or when posted overseas.

Why This Matters

When Western managers apply their own leadership ideals as the universal standard, Southeast Asian leaders may be unfairly overlooked for promotions or judged as “not ready” for larger responsibilities. As such, many MNCs continue to send their expats, claiming that their local leadership are "not ready", needing more development. This not only stifles local talent development but also prevents organizations from benefiting from diverse leadership styles that resonate deeply with local teams. I'm not saying that all Western managers face this challenge. I've come across many who are culturally sensitive. But I have also had my fair share of occasions where I had to defend my Asean colleagues and to help with cultural behavioral translation. I must admit, I too made similar errors during my younger days when working overseas.

A More Culturally Aware Approach

Global organizations must adapt their leadership assessments to account for cultural nuances. This means:

1. Expanding the definition of leadership beyond Western norms to include relational, consensus-driven, and context-sensitive behaviors.

2. Training expatriate managers to recognize cultural differences in communication, decision-making, and authority.

3. Valuing local leadership effectiveness—for example, recognizing that in collectivist cultures, harmony and group alignment often drive stronger long-term results than individual assertiveness.

4. Developing dual-lens leaders—encouraging Southeast Asian managers to flex between local expectations and global frameworks, while helping Western managers appreciate this adaptability.

Final Thought

The question is not whether Southeast Asian leaders are competent—it’s whether we are evaluating them fairly. By broadening our leadership frameworks to reflect cultural diversity, organizations can unlock the full potential of Southeast Asia’s talent pool and build leadership pipelines that are both globally relevant and locally effective.