"Best practice."

Two words that end most debates in global organizations.

But here's what I've observed over 30 years: what we call best practice is often simply most practiced - dominant because headquarters has the power to export it, not because it is universally optimal.

What if ad nauseam replication is creating more harm than good?

Take the performance question. It's an important one: every organisation needs to evaluate contribution and develop capability. We agree on the objectives. But the implementation needs more nuance than we give it. We assume standardisation is fairness. Yet we struggle to get the best out of our people - or even determine what great performance looks like - because the context is different and the yardstick is not the same.

A person who is respectful, thoughtful, and communicates in turn is seen to lack initiative and "executive presence." A person who seeks input and builds consensus before speaking is rated as lacking confidence and indecisive.

The behaviour is sound. The lens is wrong.

➡️ This is what happens when we export a system designed for a different context. The premise that because it worked before it should work anywhere is not sophisticated enough.

Here's the challenge: context sensitivity is difficult to see. It accounts for much of the resistance we face operating in cross-context settings, resistance we often misread as capability gaps, mindset issues, or lack of commitment. The real issue is invisible to us.

➡️ What if we put context first instead and adjusted the approach for maximum impact?

The discipline of Contextual Leadership begins with a dangerous question: What if "best" means "best there" not "best everywhere"?