Introduction
“Yes Sir.” For us, these words are not just a response. They are a way of understanding how to relate to authority. They reflect how we were raised, how we learned to show respect, and how we were taught to navigate professional and educational spaces. As African international graduate assistants, our understanding of authority and professional relationships did not begin in the United States. It was shaped in African classrooms, communities, and workplaces where hierarchy mattered, where authority was rarely questioned, and where respect was expressed through deference, agreement, and careful communication.
When we entered higher education in the United States, we encountered a different expectation. We were asked to speak up, share ideas, challenge perspectives, and engage with supervisors and professors as colleagues rather than subordinates. What was framed as collaboration and openness in this new context often felt unfamiliar and, at times, uncomfortable. This shift is not simply about adjusting communication styles. It is about navigating deeply rooted cultural understandings of power, respect, and professional identity. For many African international graduate assistants, the transition from hierarchical to more collegial relationships with supervisors is not immediate. It requires unlearning, relearning, and ongoing negotiation.
In this article, we draw on our experiences as African international graduate assistants to explore how cultural background shapes relationships with supervisors and professors in U.S. higher education. We examine how differences in power dynamics and communication expectations can create moments of tension, misunderstanding, and growth. We also offer practical insights for student affairs professionals, supervisors, and faculty who seek to better support international graduate students as they navigate transitions to graduate education in the U.S. – both in and out of the classroom. By centering our experiences, we aim to move beyond assumptions about engagement, professionalism, and initiative and instead invite a more culturally informed understanding of how students relate to authority in higher education settings.
“Yes Sir”: Where It Began
Emmanuel
My “Yes Sir” moment began during my time as a teaching assistant at the University of Cape Coast. In that environment, my role was clear: follow direction. Whether it was grading, organizing tutorials, or supporting faculty, I waited to be told what to do. At the time, this did not feel limiting; it felt normal. It was how the system worked. Initiative was not discouraged explicitly, but it was not expected either. Acting without instruction could even feel inappropriate. So I learned to wait, to ask, and to confirm before acting.
Over time, this shaped how I saw myself in professional spaces. I became dependent on direction. Even when I noticed problems that needed attention, I hesitated. Should I act? Or should I ask first? Most of the time, I chose to ask. This experience made me disciplined and attentive. It taught me how to follow through and respect structure. But it did not teach me how to act independently.
When I transitioned into my graduate assistantship in the United States, I carried this mindset with me. I entered meetings, waiting for direction. I approached tasks expecting instruction. But instead, I was told something unfamiliar: “You are a colleague here. You can take initiative.” I heard the words, but I did not fully understand them. Being called a ‘colleague’ felt empowering but also confusing. I was being invited into a role I had not been trained to occupy.
Shadrack
My experience reflects a similar pattern to Emmanuel’s. During my national service as a teaching assistant at the University of Cape Coast, I worked closely with professors and students. It was a meaningful experience that strengthened my academic and professional skills. I learned about grading, assessment, and pedagogy, and I gained insight into how academic departments function.
However, the structure of that environment was deeply hierarchical. Professors were highly respected and often placed on a pedestal. There was both a visible and invisible distance between them and those who worked with them. As teaching assistants, we operated within those boundaries.
We followed instructions. We executed tasks. We rarely contributed to decisions.
There were moments when teachers developed course designs without input from teaching assistants. Even when we had ideas, we often kept them to ourselves. Not because we lacked insight, but because the system did not invite it.
“Yes, Sir” became a way of navigating that space, an agreement that maintained order, even when it limited participation. These experiences shaped how we understood authority. They taught us what it meant to be respectful, but they also shaped our understanding of what was possible within professional relationships.
Cultural Background and Relationships with Authority
The way African international students relate to supervisors and professors is shaped by cultural values, social expectations, and early experiences with authority. In many African societies, respect for elders and those in authority is deeply embedded in everyday life. This respect is not only about politeness; it is a way of maintaining order and harmony in relationships. From a young age, individuals are taught to listen carefully, follow instructions, and avoid openly challenging those in positions of authority. These expectations carry into educational and professional settings, where authority figures such as teachers, supervisors, and community leaders are often approached with deference. Cultural values, including communal responsibility and respect for hierarchy, shape how individuals communicate and behave in professional environments (Oppong, 2013).
This cultural orientation is closely connected to collectivist values. In collectivist societies, individuals see themselves as part of a group, and maintaining harmony within that group is often prioritized over expressing individual opinions. In the Ghanaian context, for example, identity is closely tied to community, family, and social relationships, and these connections influence how individuals interact with others, including those in authority (Oppong, 2013). As a result, even when students have questions, they may choose caution, humility, and agreement in their interactions with supervisors and professors.
Research on cultural dimensions further explains these patterns. Ghana is characterized by a high level of power distance, meaning that hierarchical relationships are widely accepted and expected (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al., 2011). In such contexts, authority figures are often seen as decision-makers and sources of direction, while those in subordinate positions are expected to follow guidance rather than question it. This structure shapes expectations in professional relationships, where speaking up or challenging ideas may not feel appropriate or comfortable.
African international students encounter a different set of expectations when they enter higher education settings in the United States. In many U.S. academic and professional environments, relationships between students and faculty are less formal. Students are encouraged to share their ideas, ask questions, and engage in open dialogue. Supervisors may expect initiative, independence, and even disagreement as part of professional growth.
For African international students, this shift can be difficult to navigate. Behaviors that signal respect in one context may be interpreted differently in another. For instance, a student who remains quiet during meetings or avoids challenging a professor may be seen as disengaged or lacking confidence. However, this behavior may actually reflect a cultural understanding of respect and professionalism rooted in their upbringing.
Communication styles also play a role in these dynamics. In many African contexts, communication can be more indirect, with meaning conveyed through tone, context, and nonverbal cues. This contrasts with more direct communication styles often expected in U.S. academic environments. As a result, students may find it challenging to express disagreement, ask for clarification, or advocate for themselves in ways that align with local expectations.
These cultural differences highlight the importance of understanding the background that African international students bring with them. Cultural values do not disappear when students enter new environments; instead, those values continue to shape how students engage. Work behavior and interaction patterns are closely linked to cultural and social values, and these influences remain strong even as individuals adapt to new settings (Oppong, 2013).
For student affairs professionals, supervisors, and faculty, recognizing these dynamics is critical. Recognition allows for a more thoughtful interpretation of student behavior and reduces the risk of misjudging silence or deference as a lack of engagement. Creating inclusive environments means not only encouraging participation but also understanding the cultural frameworks at play. Ultimately, the relationship between African international students and their supervisors or professors is shaped by a negotiation between cultural values and new expectations. As students learn to navigate less formal power dynamics, they are not simply adapting to a new system; they are also redefining what respect, professionalism, and engagement mean in a different cultural context.
Communication as a Site of Tension
Communication is where power, culture, and professional identity intersect for African international graduate assistants. Differences between African and U.S. communication norms often become most visible in everyday interactions such as email exchanges, meetings, and supervisory relationships. These differences are shaped by culturally embedded understandings of authority, respect, and social hierarchy.
Formality vs. Informality
African communication styles are generally influenced by respect for authority, which tends to produce more formal modes of interaction. Titles such as “Sir,” “Madam,” or “Doctor” are not merely polite additions but signify recognition of hierarchy and social order (Oppong, 2013). Communication with supervisors is often structured, deferential, and cautious, reflecting deeply ingrained cultural expectations about how one engages with authority figures.
In contrast, many U.S. higher education environments operate within relatively low-power-distance frameworks, where informality is normalized and encouraged. Graduate assistants may be expected to address supervisors by their first names, use a conversational tone in emails, and engage in collegial dialogue. For African international graduate assistants, this shift can be disorienting. What is intended as respect in one context may be perceived as excessive formality in another, while informality may be perceived as inappropriate or disrespectful.
This tension often requires African graduate assistants to code-switch, adjusting their tone, language, and communication style. The transition from “Yes Sir” to first-name interactions is not simply linguistic but represents a deeper shift in students’ understanding of how professional relationships are enacted.
Speaking Up and Disagreeing
Voice and participation are closely related to communication style. In many African contexts, speaking up, especially in ways that challenge authority, is often discouraged. Cultural norms emphasize listening, obedience, and respect. As a result, individuals may avoid openly disagreeing with supervisors or authority figures, even when they have valuable insights or alternative perspectives. Wanasika et al. (2011) noted that high power distance cultures tend to reinforce expectations of unquestioned obedience and directive leadership. Similarly, Oppong (2013) highlighted that employees in such contexts are often socialized to follow instructions rather than engage in critical dialogue. These patterns can carry over into academic and professional environments abroad.
In U.S. higher education, however, graduate assistants are expected to actively contribute, question ideas, and engage in critical discussions. Participation is frequently interpreted as a sign of competence and engagement. For African international graduate assistants, this expectation may conflict with prior socialization, leading to hesitation to speak up. This does not reflect a lack of knowledge but rather a different understanding of appropriate professional behavior.
Fear of Misinterpretation
These differences in communication norms can also generate a heightened sense of vulnerability, particularly the fear of being misunderstood or misjudged. African international graduate assistants may be uncomfortable speaking up, while also worrying that remaining reserved might be interpreted as disengagement. Communication is about conveying information and also about negotiating identity. The risk of misinterpretation can therefore lead to self-monitoring where individuals carefully filter their contributions to avoid negative judgments.
Additionally, accents, language differences, and cultural expressions may contribute to concerns about being misunderstood. Even when communication is clear, differences in tone, phrasing, or nonverbal cues are interpreted through unfamiliar cultural lenses. This reinforces feelings of marginalization, particularly when feedback is not explicitly communicated or when expectations are not clarified.
Rethinking Supervision: What Professionals Should Know
The supervisory relationship is one of the most important spaces where cultural differences in power, communication, and professional identity become visible. For African international graduate assistants, supervision is not just about completing tasks or receiving feedback. It is also a space where deeply held cultural understandings of authority are challenged, reshaped, and, at times, misunderstood. Therefore, effective supervision requires intentional, culturally informed practices that move beyond assumptions and create space for mutual learning.
Practicing Cultural Humility
First, supervisors must approach their work with cultural humility. It is easy to interpret behaviors such as silence, deference, or hesitation as a lack of confidence or engagement. However, for many African international graduate assistants, these behaviors are rooted in cultural values that emphasize respect. Cultural humility means recognizing that one’s own understanding is not universal and requires supervisors to remain curious and willing to learn from students’ experiences. Instead of asking, “Why is this student not speaking up?” supervisors might ask, “What cultural expectations might be shaping how this student engages?” This shift in perspective allows for more meaningful relationships.
Clarifying Expectations Explicitly
In many U.S. higher education environments, expectations around communication, autonomy, and initiative are often implied rather than stated. For African international graduate assistants, this lack of clarity can create confusion. Supervisors can make expectations explicit by stating
- how communication should occur (e.g., email tone, use of first names, meeting participation)
- what initiative looks like in practice
- how decisions are made and how input should be provided
When expectations are clearly communicated, students can begin to navigate their roles with greater confidence and understanding.
Encouraging Questions and Normalizing Uncertainty
Another important aspect of supervision is creating an environment where questions are welcomed and uncertainty is normalized. In many African contexts, asking too many questions, especially to authority figures, may be seen as inappropriate. As a result, students may hesitate to seek clarification. Supervisors can counter this by:
- inviting questions
- framing uncertainty as a natural part of learning
- reassuring students that asking questions is a sign of engagement, not weakness
Simple statements such as “It’s okay not to know yet” or “Feel free to ask questions anytime” can go a long way in reducing hesitation and building trust.
Providing Structured Guidance and Gradual Autonomy
African international graduate assistants may initially expect structured guidance. Being told to “take initiative” without context can feel unclear or overwhelming. Supervisors can support this transition by offering structure early on. This might include:
- Clear task breakdowns
- Specific examples of expected outcomes
- Regular check-ins
As students become more comfortable, supervisors can gradually increase expectations for independence. This developmental approach allows students to build confidence while adapting to new professional norms.
Building Relationships Through Consistency and Trust
For many African international graduate assistants, trust develops over time through consistently supportive interactions. Supervisors who follow up on previous conversations, check in regularly, and show genuine interest in students’ experiences create a sense of safety. This relational approach is especially important for students navigating unfamiliar systems. When students feel seen and understood, they are more likely to share their ideas, ask questions, and take initiative.
Moving from Assumption to Understanding
Ultimately, rethinking supervision requires recognizing that behaviors are shaped by cultural contexts. Adaptation is a process, not an immediate outcome. By practicing cultural humility, clarifying expectations, encouraging questions, providing structured support, and building trusting relationships, supervisors can create environments where African international graduate assistants can move more confidently from “Yes, Sir” to colleagues. This shift does not require students to abandon their cultural values. Instead, it creates space for them to integrate those values into new professional identities that are both respectful and engaged, both grounded and evolving.
Conclusion
The transition from “Yes Sir” to “colleagues” is not just about language. It is about identity. It is about learning new ways of relating to authority while holding on to deeply rooted cultural values. For African international graduate assistants, this complex transition requires unlearning, relearning, and constant negotiation alongside opportunities for growth and reflection. For student affairs professionals, the challenge is not to change students, but to understand them. By recognizing how culture shapes communication and engagement, supervisors and educators create environments where students can show respect while giving voice to their ideas.
Reflection Questions
- How do my assumptions about professionalism shape how I interpret graduate student behavior?
- In what ways might cultural background influence how students engage with authority in my office or classroom?
- How can I create space for students to express their ideas without fear or feeling that they are being disrespectful?
Authors
Emmanuel Amankwah is a graduate student in the Higher Education and Student Affairs Administration program at Grand Valley State University. He serves as a graduate assistant at the Office of Inclusion and Equity Institute, where he coordinates learning development programs through the Inclusion and Equity Institute. His professional interests include international student support, inclusion and equity.
Shadrack Bannor is a graduate student in the College Student Personnel Program at Ohio University and a graduate assistant for Well-Being Programming and Outreach. Originally from Ghana, he has professional experience in education and student affairs that has shaped his interests in student development, intercultural experiences, and belonging. His work focuses on student well-being, leadership, and the experiences of international students navigating identity and cultural transition within higher education.
References
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings
in psychology and culture, 2(1).
Oppong, N. Y. (2013). Towards African work orientations: Guide from Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(20), 203-213.
Wanasika, I., Howell, J. P., Littrell, R., & Dorfman, P. (2011). Managerial leadership and culture
in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 234-241.