For executives with global responsibilities, success depends in large part on their ability to understand the cultural differences that influence business decision-making and to communicate effectively with their foreign counterparts. Diane L. Simpson, a member of WJM Associates' coaching faculty, has helped thousands of managers from more than 100 countries to work effectively with those from different cultural backgrounds. As coach to dozens of senior executives, including many from Europe and Asia stationed in the United Stares, she has enabled her clients to successfully work across cultural borders. Her current research includes developing a model of cross-national technology transfer using intercultural teams. She holds a Ph.D. in personality and social psychology from Boston University, speaks Japanese and French, and reads Chinese.

What advice can you offer to someone who has been promoted and now will have more international responsibilities?

Obviously, for someone dealing across cultural borders, there are many important country-specific things to know. However, an executive about to take on an international position needs a global mindset and the ability to look at the dimensions of cultural differences that apply across the world and see how they play out.

For example, one important dimension identified by a leading Dutch social scientist named Geert Hofstede is "uncertainty avoidance." This refers to how much data you need to have before you make a decision. If you're an American executive dealing with Europeans, you may have had experience dealing with some, such as Belgians, who have very high uncertainty avoidance. Japanese are high on uncertainty avoidance. Americans are relatively low on uncertainty avoidance.

So people with very high uncertainty avoidance need a lot of data.

Yes, though some of the motivations for uncertainty avoidance could differ from culture to culture. In East Asia, for example, a lot of uncertainty avoidance is related to issues of face-saving. People there don't want to make a mistake; they fear their colleagues will view them negatively. As a result, they are very deliberate in their decision-making.

Would you say communication between cultures is more effective face-to-face?

I think that's a very fair statement. There are different ways in which cultural theorists comment upon that. Certain cultures, like the U.S., are task-focused vs. relationship-focused. This does not mean that Americans don't care about relationships, but, rather, we prefer to get the task done and then get to know our counterparts. In cultures that are relationship-focused, people are very reluctant to join in on the task until they feel they trust the people involved.

Another way of saying that is the U.S. tends to be a very high-trust culture. We trust people unless we have reason not to trust them. In some other cultures, which are relatively low-trust, you don't trust someone unless you have a good reason to trust them, namely someone you know and trust gives you an introduction to that person, and kind of guarantees that relationship. In East Asia, for example, that is largely the case. You just don't go and do business with someone without an introduction very easily.

And you need to spend time getting to know the person.

The way Americans might want to get to know another person could be quite different from the way, say, an East Asian person might want to get to know someone. We're looking much more for people's opinions, the way they think about things. We try to get more into their personalities. On the other hand, the Japanese want to know where you went to school and how you fit into your company's hierarchy. All those things are not about you as an individual, but you in the context of your group. If you are a high-status person in a recognized, credible organization, you bring to the table not only your own credentials, but also those of your organization. Individual "chemistry" then becomes less important.

What is the best way to assess executives' leadership potential?

Where large numbers of candidates are involved, organizations may employ one or more self-administered questionnaires to identify the characteristics of their personalities. These assessments can be conducted either by traditional paper-and-pencil or online, quickly and cost-effectively.

Next might come an interview with an organizational psychologist trained to probe and assess candidates' responses to a variety of questions.

But perhaps the richest source of insight into someone's leadership potential is the 360-degree interview, a series of one-on-one discussions conducted by a psychologist or coach with an executive's supervisors and six to eight peers and direct reports. Such feedback not only yields specific examples of the behaviors that a candidate may need to change or polish to increase his or her chances for future success, but it also provides the foundation for the action plan to achieve those goals.

Successful 360s begin with the selection of colleagues to interview. "I always suggest that executives pick a cross-section of people who know them pretty well, including one or two with whom they may have had some difficulty, so that we can get a wide range of opinion," says Chrys Kasapis, Ph.D., a psychologist and member of the WJM Associates coaching and assessment faculty.

WJM Associates offers 360 interviews as part of the firm's Leadership Proficiency Evaluation, which also includes a personality assessment and psychological interview.

During the 360 interviews, no one's comments are attributed and only comments that come from more than one person are considered for the report that is shared with the candidate.

After all of the interviews have been conducted, the psychologist and coach meet with the executive to go over the feedback.

"The power of that meeting comes from the fact that it is very collaborative," says Kasapis. "It is almost like a brainstorming session that feeds into the coaching. And we quickly can sense if the person agrees or disagrees with the feedback."

Executive coaches find many ways to use the results of the 360 interviews with their clients. Ed McDougal, a former business executive and member of the WJM faculty, encourages the individuals he advises to thank their colleagues for participating in the process.

"Tell them that their feedback, while not attributed to anyone, was really valuable," he says. "Let them know that you received really good insights that will help you become more effective. This helps overcome any institutional resistance to the behaviors that you want to change and creates an environment for mutual learning."

McDougal also tries to use the findings from the 360s to leverage his clients' managerial assets.

"Realistically, you can only ask people to change in a couple of areas," he says, "and there is a reason people are in the organization in the first place -- they are there because they have talents. When I approach a coaching assignment, I like to build upon people's strengths, so that the impact of that person's talents have greater influence in the organization."

You won't find it in any management textbooks, but one of the most important roles that managers play is to serve as a mirror to the people they supervise.

What is a mirror? A boss who give honest, objective feedback to subordinates while counseling them on developmental or corrective issues of behavior or performance.

Change is usually a slow process and doesn't happen in a linear fashion. It's three steps forward, one step back. Most people have difficulty being objective about their own growth and progress. If people know the truth about themselves and their performance, they are in a position to do something positive about it. Your observations are the raw data from which you will reflect and guide people as they strive to change and grow.

People need a lot of mirroring and encouragement as they go about the arduous task of changing habits and building new skills. Being a good mirror isn't easy, because it means you have to get yourself out of the way. The more you mirror and the less you judge, the more the person will trust you and the more open he or she will be.

Remember, a mirror tells it like it is without any distortion. It simply reflects back what is. Just as you may not always like what you see when you look in the mirror, people may not always like what you reflect back to them, regardless of how objective you are or how well intended.

If you consistently give constructive feedback that is meaningful, most people will eventually change and thank you. As a manager, it is one of the most significant, long-lasting gifts you can give your staff. Whether they realize it or not, most people are hungry for the truth about themselves and their performance.

The key to being a successful mirror is to be specific in your observations and your feedback. Exactly what did Joe do that was off-putting? What was his tone of voice? What was his body language like? By noting specific actions and relating them in detail, you stand a better chance of fostering change.

What you are looking for are coachable moments, situations that offer you on-the-job opportunities to teach people something relevant to their developmental goals. Each day affords dozens of such moments. Make the most of them in your role as a mirror.

Most women have an innate ability to nurture, and one way they do that is to accept what others will not. In the business world, this sometimes translates into women accepting -- and even volunteering for -- assignments that will do little to advance their careers.

Women in management shouldn't stifle their nurturing instincts; both corporate America and the world at large would be the worse for it if they did. Nor should women ever suppress the desire to be team players or show eagerness for work.

Instead, women should show judgment, discrimination and selectivity before taking on new assignments, and accept those that offer a strategic benefit to their careers. Maybe it's a step into a new area. Or an opportunity to do something for the sake of visibility only. Or a chance to learn a new business skill. No matter how small it is, a task that gives you exposure to top management or enables you to develop new skills is not insignificant.

Here are three recommendations for managing assignments that may come your way:

Evaluate strategically each opportunity to serve. It is essential to distinguish between insignificant tasks and significant tasks. Serving on an interdepartmental task force to revamp the corporate intranet may be an important task, but serving on a committee that will give you exposure to senior management could be a significant opportunity. Look at each potential assignment for the long-term benefits that it offers. If an assignment does not offer a strategic benefit …

Prepare to Say No. The key is not to use the word itself, but to articulate the business reasons why your skills would better serve the organization in a different capacity. Instead of saying, "I don't think I'm right for this job," suggest another task where your company would benefit from your experience (because you are "right" for any job). Also, read your boss's need to complete the task. Do something that your boss really needs and he or she becomes a little more obligated to you.

Create Your Own Opportunities. You might have to wait some time for strategic opportunities to arise. If that is the case, then create one for yourself. Start by meeting with your boss. Let him or her know of your interest in a specific area. Many times, the person who makes a suggestion gets to run with it -- or at least serves on the task force that will study the new idea. It could be the boldest step you take.