I was about to start a training session with a client the other day when she casually interrupted and proceeded to tell me exactly what she wanted and did not want from our program. It wasn’t so much her approach to the conversation which took me by surprise, but the fact that she had never been so…black and white. In another meeting context unrelated to training or cross-cultural communication, I might have taken this as a blunt, straight-to-the-point, bottom line approach. Let’s call it “American.”

The fact is that three months ago, this client (let’s call her Candace) was not necessarily timid, but did not know how she could use her company sponsored training time with me, resulting in an approach that was less engaged, less collaborative and much less directive– a bit more show and tell. This time around was different, and Candace was driving. I liked the change of pace.

Candace demonstrated what is often lacking with many of the international clients coming to Springboards:

• Clear initiatives when driving the meeting;

• Outside contextual knowledge to support the discussion and provide necessary confidence for its delivery;

• Strong directives, and

• The foresight to see the training as a collaborative, two-way process, not a transactional exchange.

As soon as she was able to see her own stake in the outcomes of the training, she was able to jump in faster and more forcefully influence the direction it would take.

So when I hear managers and colleagues of internationals lament that their colleagues are not speaking out and contributing enough at meetings, I say put them into self-directed training. Tell them the outcomes are based heavily on how well they are able to communicate their needs to the trainer then work collaboratively to improve, which also means doing their part throughout the life of the program. This process is no different, and should be no different, than how they work within teams. In this case, the outcomes are more strongly connected to their own professional development and eventual career advancement. Who wouldn’t want a stake in their own future?

Finally, where many types of training programs abound—mandatory and optional, group and individual, corporate university and in person, among others—make sure international employees do not view these as transactional or one-way. Making internationals collaboratively responsible for the outcomes of the training is an effective way to empower them with tools and entrepreneurial thinking about their futures in the organization.  In order for such outcomes to take place, be sure the training structure allows for this degree of autonomy. It will then be crystal clear who is taking responsibility for their own career development, and who is simply waiting for others (the company? other colleagues? the trainer?) to decide this for them.

We hope this was helpful both to our international readers and the people who support them. We want to hear from you. In the vein of motivating, promoting and retaining talented international employees, what solutions have you tried? What is working? Not working?

We look forward to the discussion!