Building cultural intelligence in the country

I was scheduled to meet a friend for a casual catch-up—something we had both agreed fit neatly into our calendars. We had not seen each other in years yet on the day of our meeting, I had a quiet intuition that she would be late. When the message finally arrived, it confirmed the hunch: she would be delayed. What was striking was not the delay itself, but its magnitude—two full hours. I found myself with unexpected time to reflect, once again, on a cultural pattern I have been confronting for as long as I can remember, and even more acutely since returning to the Philippines after more than a decade living overseas.

This experience, while personal, illustrates a broader point: cultural intelligence (CQ) is not merely about understanding other cultures. It is equally—if not more—about understanding one’s own. In the Philippines, our approach to time, commitment, communication, and relationships is deeply rooted in cultural frameworks that prioritize harmony and emotion over precision and structure. For international executives and investors, this dynamic is both an opportunity and a risk—depending on whether it is recognized and managed deliberately.

Having worked across more than 30 countries and with a background in cultural diplomacy, I have observed a defining Filipino tendency: an affinity for vagueness and an aversion to clarity, in both business and personal contexts. This is not a flaw; it is a feature of a high-context, relationship-driven culture. However, when left unexamined, it becomes a source of friction in global business environments that reward predictability and execution.

Several well-known Filipino cultural traits exemplify this pattern. First is halo-halo—not just a dessert, but a mindset. We enjoy mixing elements together, embracing complexity and simultaneity. This approach appears in everything from cuisine to problem-solving. Contrast this with the Japanese bento concept, which emphasizes separation, order, and intentional simplicity. In business, halo-halo thinking often manifests as overlapping roles, blurred accountability, and fluid processes.

Second is our relaxed relationship with time. If a meeting is set for 1:00 PM, it may begin at 1:30—or 3:00—with little apology. While this flexibility fosters patience and social ease locally, it can be jarring for cultures such as Singapore or Germany, where time discipline underpins operational excellence. For global partners, this misalignment is frequently misinterpreted as disrespect or inefficiency rather than cultural norm.

Third is Bahala Na, a philosophy rooted in resilience and adaptability, but one that also discourages long-term planning. Commitments often resemble intentions rather than measurable targets. Strategy exists, but execution timelines remain elastic.

Fourth is Utang Na Loob. Favors are rarely transactional or time-bound. The obligation may surface years later, in forms neither party explicitly defined. While this builds loyalty and trust within networks, it introduces ambiguity in governance, decision-making, and ethical boundaries—particularly in corporate environments.

Finally, there is the complexity of “yes.” Saying “no” directly risks confrontation and loss of face. As a result, refusal is deferred, softened, or left implicit—creating challenges in project planning and stakeholder alignment. These behaviors are reinforced by our low Individualism score on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (17), placing the Philippines firmly in the collectivist category. Relationships matter deeply—often more than rules or contracts. Business is personal. Colleagues become family; professional boundaries are porous. In contrast, in highly individualistic cultures like the United States, years of collaboration may pass without personal familiarity.

The paradox is this: Filipinos excel at adapting to other cultures, evidenced by over 10 million overseas Filipinos and a growing population of remote and nomadic workers. What we lack is systematic awareness of how our own culture shapes decisions, timelines, and commitments.

As I waited two hours for my friend, I realized this may not be the last time cultural ambiguity gifts me unexpected reflection time. For leaders doing business in the Philippines, the imperative is clear: success depends not on changing the culture, but on building cultural intelligence—translating ambiguity into clarity without eroding relationships. Those who can do this will not only operate effectively; they will lead.