The Culture Map
To succeed in business, we have to skillfully operate in wildly different cultural realities. Many communication challenges, misunderstandings, conflicts, and failures arise from cultural differences, and we need to be aware of these cultural differences to deal with them more effectively.
Individual differences do matter, but they are not enough. If you go to every interaction assuming culture doesn't matter, you will view others only through your own cultural lens and risk making a poor judgment. Appreciation of individual differences and respect for cultural differences are both essential.
The book maps cultural differences along 8 different scales:
Communicating: low-context vs high-context
Evaluating: direct negative feedback vs indirect negative feedback
Persuading: principles-first vs applications-first
Leading: egalitarian vs hierarchical
Deciding: consensual vs top-down
Trusting: task-based vs relationships-based
Disagreeing: confrontational vs avoid confrontation
Scheduling: linear-time vs flexible-time
By seeing how different cultures you are exposed to are positioned on this map, you can decode how culture influences your international collaboration.
The country positioning reflects a mid-point of the behavior acceptable and appropriate in a country. The culture sets the range, and within that range, each individual makes a choice.
What matters on the culture map is the cultural relativity: not the absolute positioning of different countries across the eight scales, but their relative positioning that determines how people view one another.
People who grew up and lived in multiple countries or had parents coming from different cultures may notice how these different cultures have shaped their individual personalities.
Culture is a sensitive topic, and we feel and respond protectively and defensively when it comes to our own culture. It's like speaking about your family: you can criticize your family members, but get insensed when someone else dares to do it.
We become more conscious of our own culture when we get exposure to other cultures.
When it comes to working across cultures, remember we have two eyes, two ears and only one mouth, let's try to use them accordingly. Try to watch more, listen more, and speak less. Listen before you speak and learn before you act.
Listening to the Air: Communicating Across Cultures
Low-context cultures: Good communication is precise, simple, and clear. Messages are expressed and understood at face value. Repetition is appreciated if it helps clarify communication. US, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Demark, Finland, UK, Poland.
High-context cultures: good communication is sophisticated, nuanced, and layered. Messages are both spoken and read between the lines. Messages are often implied but not plainly expressed. Japan, Korea, Indonesia, China, African countries, Arab countries, Russia, Latin European and Latin American countries.
Both languages and history reflect shape low- or high-context preferences. Languages where words may have multiple meanings lead to high-context cultures. High-context countries also have a long shared history.
Education tends to move individuals to a more extreme version of their cultural dominant.
When working with people from high-context cultures, listen carefully, ask clarifying questions, try to read the 'no' between the lines, don't jump to opinions too quickly, don't repeat yourself endlessly.
When working with people from low-context cultures, be as transparent, clear, and specific as possible.
Multicultural teams need low-context processing, for example, three levels of verification at the end of each meeting: key points, individual actions, and written recap.
Low-context cultures tend to put things in writing, whereas in some cultures this may be seen as a lack of trust. Explain upfront why you are doing this: things in writing reduce confusion and save time.
The Many Faces of Polite: Evaluating Performance and Providing Negative Feedback
Direct negative feedback: negative feedback to a colleague is provided frankly, bluntly, honestly. Negative messages stand alone, not softened by the positive ones. b are often used (absolutely, totally strongly) when criticizing. Criticism may be given to an individual in front of a group. Russia, Israel, Netherlands, Germany, France, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Australia, Spain.
Indirect negative feedback: Negative feedback to colleagues is provided softly, subtly, and diplomatically. Positive messages are used to wrap up negative ones. Downgraders are often used (sort of, slightly) when criticizing. Criticism is given only in private. Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Korea, Ghana, India, China, Kenya, Latin America, UK, Canada, US.
Importance of cultural relativity.
Some countries stand on opposite ends of their Communicating and Evaluating scales: US, UK (low context + indirect negative feedback), France, Russia, Israel (high-context + direct negative feedback).
When you work with:
Low context, direct negative feedback: don't do it like them, you risk to go too far. Accept criticism in a positive manner, it is not meant to offend you.
High context, direct negative feedback: use downgraders, think about how it connects to the leading scale
Low-context, indirect negative feedback: be explicit and low context with both positive and negative feedback. Try to be balanced in the amount of positive and negative feedback you give. Frame your behavior in cultural terms.
High-context, indirect negative feedback: don't give negative feedback in front of the group. Blur the message: give feedback slowly, over a period of time, so that it gradually sinks in. Use food and drink to blur an unpleasant message. Say the good and leave out the bad. Think about linking the context to the leading scale.
Be polite: practice humility, test the waters before speaking up, assume goodwill on the part of others, and invest time and energy in building good relationships.
Why Versus How: The Art of Persuasion in a Multicultural World
Applications-first: Individuals are trained to begin with a fact, statement, or opinion and later add concepts to back up or explain the conclusion as necessary. The preference is to begin a message or report with an executive summary or bullet points. Discussions are approached in a practical, concrete manner. Theoretical or philosophical discussions are avoided in a business environment. US, Canada, Australia, UK, Netherlands, Scandinavian countries
Principles-first: Individuals have been trained to first develop the theory or complex concepts before presenting a fact, statement, or opinion. The preference is to begin a message or report by building up a theoretical argument before moving on to a conclusion. The conceptual principles underlying each situation are valued. Italy, Frane, Russia, Spain, Germany, Latin America.
The way we tend to persuade is rooted in our cultures' philosophical (Descartes, Hegel vs Bacon), religious, legal (common law in US, UK vs civil law in France, Germany), and educational assumptions and attitudes.
When dealing with:
Applications-first: start with practical examples, use case method.
Principles-first: outline theoretical foundation
Mix: switch back and forth
Asian countries don't fit the Persuading scale. They have a holistic thought pattern, while Westerners have a specific approach. Taoism, which influenced Buddhism and Confucianism, proposes that the universe works harmoniously, its various elements dependent upon one another. The terms yin and yang describe how seemingly contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent. Asians think from macro to micro, Westerners - from micro to macro. You will be more influential if you take the time to explain the big picture and how all pieces fit together. Outline not just the overall project but also how the parts are connected before drilling down what specifically needs to be accomplished and when.
When doing a group work in a multi-cultural team, think about the larger objective before mixing cultures up. If the goal is innovation and creativity, mix more; if the goal is speed and efficiency, mix less.
How Much Respect Do You Want? Leadership, Hierarchy, and Power
The Leading scale originates from Geert Hofstede and his concept of power distance: the extent the least powerful members of organisations accept and expect that power id distributed unequally.
Egalitarian: the ideal power distance between a boss and a subordinate is low. The best boss is a facilitator among equals. Organizational structures are flat. Communication often skips hierarchical lines. From strongest to weakest: Scandinavian countries, Israel, Netherlands, Australia, US, UK
Hierarchical: the ideal distance between a boss and a subordinate is high. The best boss is a strong director who leads from the front. Status is important. Organizational structures are multilayered and fixed. Communication follows set hierarchical lines. From strongest to weakest: Japan, Korea, Nigeria, Arab countries, Russia, China, Eastern and Western European countries, Latin America.
It's interesting to know large differences on the Leading scale for various European countries: the countries that used to be under the influence of the Roman Empire tend to be more hierarchical, the countries under Vikings influence - most egalitarian. Religion also comes to play: countries with Protestant cultures tend to be more egalitarian, with Catholic tradition: more hierarchical.
A very strong hierarchical culture in the Asian countries is influenced by the Confucian tradition. However, it is important to think not only in terms of the lower level person's responsibility to obey, but also in terms of the higher-ranking person's responsibility to care and protect. The leader's responsibility for caring and teaching is just as strong as the follower's responsibility to defer and follow directions.
We have to be mindful of the culture positioning on the Leading scale when we consider level-hopping: it is accepted in the egalitarian culture, but can create misunderstanding in the hierarchical cultures.
When the hierarchical culture is so strong that you cannot get any ideas and input from your team in your presence, ask them to meet without you and brainstorm. If in the meeting, anonymize input. Give the agenda several days ahead of the meeting.
When managing a team that is much more egalitarian than your own culture, managing by objectives is a good idea.
In today's global business environment it is not enough to be either an egalitarian leader or a hierarchical leader. You need to be both - to develop the flexibility to manage up and down the cultural scales.