The paradox of relationship building for Asian Americans
During my MBA days about 20 years ago, I made a quiet rule for myself: do not spend all my time hanging out with Korean friends. It was comfortable, fun, and easy with them. We could speak in Korean, laugh at the same references, and never worry about missing a punchline. But I also knew I needed to push myself to broaden my perspective. It was harder. Fast English was stressful, and sometimes I felt bad for not catching a joke or fitting in smoothly.
Twenty years later, I am far more comfortable talking and working with non Koreans and non Asians. And yet, most of my close friendships are still anchored in Korean connections, classmates, alumni, and people with a shared cultural background.
Going Beyond Roles
At MIT Sloan School of Management, where I am part of the executive coaching team, we often talk about building relationships that go beyond roles and transactions. Professor Nelson Repenning draws on Edgar Schein’s distinction between:
Level 1 relationships — transactional and role based.
Level 2 relationships — seeing the other person beyond their role, appreciating their full humanity, and discovering talents you did not know they had.
Level 1 is necessary for efficiency. Level 2 is where trust deepens, creativity flourishes, and difficult conversations become possible.
On Erin Meyer’s Culture Map trust spectrum, cultures fall between two poles:
Task based trust building: “I trust you because you do what you say you will do.”
Relationship based trust building: “I trust you because I know who you are.”
Even after twenty plus years living in the US, I am firmly on the relationship based side. I believe relationship building is not just nice to have. It is essential for a fuller life and greater success at work. The research supports this too. In countries like China, Japan, and Korea, sharing meals, attending social events, and knowing each other’s families are not side activities — they are the work.
The in group lens
But there is another side to this. In much of East Asia, relationships are often concentrated within tightly bound in groups defined by family, hometown, school, or long standing community ties. These relationships carry deep loyalty and mutual protection. Entry is either fixed or hard, but once you are in, trust and connection is assumed.
I saw this clearly in Korea. When people meet, there is often a subtle game of connection making. “Oh, you went to that high school? My cousin did too.” And there are much bigger hidden games of making decisions based on those in-group relationships. Because the influence was so strong in hiring and promotion, government agencies now forbid interviewers from knowing a candidate’s hometown or alma mater, and candidates are not allowed to mention them in interviews. For many, this bias is so ingrained that they may not even notice it much like you do not think about being right handed until you injure it and suddenly have to brush your teeth with your left hand.
In contrast, Western cultures, not all but in general, often define in groups more fluidly, around shared goals, hobbies, or temporary affiliations. Membership shifts with mutual interest and effort. Trust is more likely to be extended to newcomers until proven otherwise.
Agriculture work scene, Hongdo Kim (1745-1806)
Recent studies by Lu (2022) and Lu et al. (2020) identify two factors that help explain East Asians’ underrepresentation in leadership roles in the United States:
Low verbal assertiveness: speaking up less often for one’s own ideas or concerns in group settings.
High ethnic homophily: a strong preference for interacting with people of the same ethnicity.
Together, these tendencies limit network expansion and cross functional influence, both of which are crucial for leadership growth.
Why it matters: Style vs. scope of relationships
Asian Americans often excel at the style of relationship building — showing care, building loyalty, and investing in trust. The challenge is the scope. If Level 2 relationships are formed mainly within in groups, networks become deep but narrow.
Leadership in the United States requires Level 2 connections across boundaries — across ethnicity, function, geography, and background. Influence and opportunity often flow through broad, diverse, and evolving networks. Leaders must be able to build trust with people they may not naturally gravitate toward, and sometimes with people who may not instinctively trust them back.
Expanding the circle
The goal is not to abandon in group relationships. They are a source of strength and resilience. It is to extend that same warmth, care, and commitment to the broader human circle. That might mean:
Offering trust before it is earned in the traditional sense.
Actively seeking relationships with people who do not share your background.
Moving from polite formality with outsiders to genuine curiosity and openness.
Some participants from task based cultures tell me, “I also like to hang out and have drinks with colleagues — so does that mean I am relationship based?” I usually respond: it is not about whether you enjoy socializing. It is about whether those activities are your primary trust building strategy — and whether you extend them beyond your in group.
When Asian Americans combine the depth of relationship based trust with the openness and reach of task based trust, they gain a distinct leadership advantage. The question is: will you keep that gift inside your circle, or will you offer it to the broader human family?