The culture map

Decoding How People Think, Lead, and Get Things Done Across Cultures

If you are an international leader, dealing with different cultures at the same time, the work of Erin Mayer, professor at INSEAD and one of the major experts in managing complexity of cultural differences in multicultural environments, is a must-read book.

Erin develop a cultural map, following eight dimensions, that enables a visual comparison of various cultures.

By analyzing the positioning of one culture relative to another, the scales enables us to decode how culture influences our own international collaboration. What matters is not the absolute position of either culture on the scale, but rather the relative position of two cultures, that determines how people view one another.

Eight dimensions are considered, regarding communication, evaluation, persuasion, leading, deciding, trusting, disagreeing and scheduling.

1. Communicating: low-context vs. high-context

·??????? In low context countries, good communication is precise, simple and clear. Messages are expressed and understood at face value. Repetition is appreciated if helps clarify the communication. Examples at this extreme are USA, Australia, Canada and Netherlands.

·??????? In high-context countries, good communication is sophisticated, nuanced and layered. Messages are both spoken and read between the lines, implied but not plainly expressed. Examples at this extreme are Japan, Korea, Indonesia, China, Kenya.

Multicultural teams need low-context processes, expressing clearly steps. As an example, during meeting, one person could recap the key points orally, each person could summarize orally what he would do next, and one person could send out a written recap. Putting things in writing may signify a lack of trust in some high-context cultures, so we have to make sure to lay down and explicit some ground rules of collaboration.

2. Evaluating: direct negative feedback vs. indirect negative feedback

·??????? In direct negative feedback countries, negative opinion is provided frankly. Negative messages stand alone, not softened by positive ones. Absolute descriptors are often used (ex. totally, inappropriate) when criticizing. Criticism is given to an individual in front of a group. Examples are Israel, Russia, Netherlands and Germany.

·??????? In indirect negative feedback countries, negative opinion is provided softly, diplomatically. Positive messages are used to wrap negative ones, qualifying descriptors are used (ex. sort of, slightly). Criticism is given only in private. Examples are Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Ghana.

Obviously, it is not black and white. Even, the first two dimensions (communication and evaluation) can cross and form specific cases, with countries that have direct negative feedback but in a high context/implicit way (ex. Israel, Russia, France) and countries that have indirect negative feedback but expressed explicitly (ex. US, Canada, UK).

3. Persuading: principles-first vs. applications-first

·??????? In principle first countries, individuals have been trained to first develop the theory or complex concept before presenting a fact or opinion. The preference is to begin a message or report by building up a theoretical argument, before moving to conclusion. Conceptual principles underlying each situation are valued. Examples are Italy, France, Spain.

·??????? In application first countries, individuals are trained to begin with a fact, statement and then add concept to back-up or explain conclusions. The preference is to begin a report with an executive summary or bullet points. Discussions are approached in a practical, concrete manner. Theoretical discussions are avoided in a business environment. Examples are US, Canada, Australia.

4. Leading: egalitarian vs. hierarchical

·??????? In egalitarian countries, ideal distance between a boss and a subordinate is low, the best boss is a facilitator among equals, organizational structures are flat and communication often skips hierarchical lines. Examples are Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands.

·??????? In hierarchical countries, ideal distance boss-subordinate is high. 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. Examples are Japan, Korea, Nigeria, India and China.

5. Deciding: consensual vs. top-down

·??????? In consensual countries, decision are made in groups through unanimous agreement. Examples are Japan, Sweden, Netherlands.

·??????? In top-down countries, decisions are made by individuals, usually the boss. Examples are China, India, Russia, Italy.

6. Trusting: task-based vs. relationship based

·??????? In task-based countries, trust is built through business-related activities. Work relationships are built and dropped easily. You do good work consistently, you are reliable, I enjoy working with you, I trust you. Examples are USA, Denmark, Netherlands.

·??????? In relationship-based countries, trust is built through sharing meals, drinks and visits at coffee machine. Work relationships are built slowly, over long term. I’ve seen who you are at deep level, I’ve shared personal time with you, I know others well who trust you, I trust you. Examples are Saudi Arabia, India, China, Brazil.

7. Disagreeing: confrontational vs. avoids confrontation

·??????? In confrontational countries, disagreement and debate are positive for team and organization. Open confrontation is appropriate and will not negatively impact the relationship. Examples are Israel, France, Germany, Russia.

·??????? In avoids confrontation countries, disagreement is negative, open confrontation is inappropriate and will break group harmony or impact negatively the relationship. Examples are Japan, Thailand, Indonesia.

This confrontational aspect can be then crossed with emotions and have countries emotionally confrontational (ex. France, Italy, Spain, Israel) or unexpressive (ex. Germany, Netherlands, Denmark) and countries that avoid confrontation with emotion (ex. Philippines, Perù, India) or unexpressive (ex. Japan, Korea, China).

8. Scheduling: linear time vs. flexible time

·??????? In linear time countries, project steps are approached in a sequential fashion, completing one task before beginning the next. No interruption. Focus is on deadline and sticking to the schedule, emphasis is on promptness and good organization over flexibility. Examples are Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Sweden.

·??????? In flexible time countries, steps are approached in a fluid manner, changing tasks as opportunities arise. Many things are dealt with at once and interruption accepted. Focus is on adaptability and flexibility is valued over organization. Examples are Saudi Arabia, India, China, Kenya, Brazil.

?

Obviously, every individual is different, cultural background is a base, but everyone has a unique style, set of preferences, interests and values: no matter who you are working with or where the person comes from, we should begin any relationship with the desire to understand what is specific and unique, but the book helps to navigate the fascinating world of human culture and interactions, providing a lot of examples and shades of grays.

Personally, I worked in different city, countries and continents, and touched personally how the professional perception of myself varied dramatically, based on the environment.

As an example, sometimes I was perceived too cold, analytical and linear in Sao Paulo, while too flexible and creative in Stuttgart, too theoretical in Indianapolis and too practical in Naples, too consensual in Ljubljana, while too top-down in Parma.

Read the context and learning to adapt to the people you have in front is definitely a competitive advantage for any international leader that has to deal with different countries, cultures and people.

Good luck in this journey!

?