What You Don’t See in the Interview: Influence of Headquarters Location on Day-to-Day Interactions

What’s in It for Me?

You’ve noticed, in the company you work for, various (repeating) attitudes and behaviors that either you appreciate or find frustrating.?

You may have tried to change the frustrating ones by discussing them with others or trying to influence their actions, but there has been little to no progress

If things got really frustrating, you thought of changing the job - but how can you tell from the interview that you won’t get to a similar culture - or even a worse one?

This article proposes an explanation, along with a case study based on my experience working at the Romanian branch of a French company compared to an Israeli one. And some solutions, learned the hard way ??

The Theory

First, a few assumptions to build on:

1. Company culture - i.e. the collection of shared values, beliefs, behaviors, and practices - shapes the work environment and influences how people interact (communication flows, how decisions are made, how people are rewarded, …)
2. Company culture is significantly influenced by its leaders both directly (through day-to-day interactions - as employees feel safe acting the same way their boss does) and indirectly (e.g. by hiring like minded people)

Erin Meyer proposes in her book, “The Culture Map”, an eight-pillar model that explains differences in how people interact and make decisions across different countries and how to address these differences.?

The graph below illustrates her findings comparing Romanian, Israeli, and French cultures:

Important note: regardless of the nation, individual responses vary, and there are a few outliers. However, a general pattern emerges, which can be represented by a bell curve, as shown below. The points selected in the graph above represent the mean values of these bell curves.

What this means for you: it’s possible that you don’t completely identify with the values associated with your nation.?

For example, I find that I am an outlier in many aspects of Romanian culture and relate more to the average results for Germany (more details at the end of the article).

The key point is that most of your colleagues likely align with the average trends.

In Practice

I’ve put together a list of examples that describe some challenging reactions I experienced or observed while working in the Romanian branch of both a French company and an Israeli company.

For each example, the behavior is outlined in the BEHAVIOR section, and the corresponding reaction is noted in the OBSERVED RESPONSE section. The motivation behind these reactions, according to Erin Meyer’s model, is explained in the POSSIBLE EXPLANATION section. Some reactions are similar across cultures, so I grouped them together.

Additionally, I’ve included the POTENTIAL SOLUTION section, which outlines the solutions I learned the hard way, that helped me overcome these challenges.?

Keep in mind that these solutions may not always be effective, because things are, of course, more complicated. Feel free to use your creativity to adapt! ??

Note: while, in my experience, the culture of the local branch is influenced by the culture of the headquarters, it also heavily depends on the culture of the local management chain and is still shaped by our local culture and biases.

The Bad Joke

BEHAVIOR: You tell a good local joke

OBSERVED RESPONSE: Either people get uncomfortable. Or they laugh, but it impacts your relations.?Only your conationals get your joke and appreciate your sense of humor.

POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: All of these 3 cultures: French, Israeli and Romanian are, communicating wise, high context, but their context is different. The other culture might not get your joke or it might be offensive to them.

There are bigger chances that Romanians get the jokes of both the other cultures as:

• French context is more similar to Romanian - we have more common roots
• Israeli communication is lower context, so they might make the joke more obvious

POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Make only international jokes - with references from well known movies, memes or books.

Or pay attention to and make sure you explain the context of the joke.

Same goes for other communication where you expect the message to be implied.

The Missed Promotion

BEHAVIOR: A role you want opens up.?

It can be that the role never opens officially for applications. Or it does, and you apply. It can be that you are never called to the interview. Or you are.

Later, management announces another person that filled the position - someone that you evaluate is at best as capable as you.

You ask what you’re missing so you can improve.

OBSERVED RESPONSE: There is the happy scenario: it can be that you are really not prepared/fit for the position, and managers who observed your behavior and results so far have reasonable reasons to provide and help you improve.

But I want to address the situation where you get no reasonable explanation

POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: This is common across all of these 3 cultures: trust wise, they are? more relationship-based than task-based. It means that, while cognitive trust is relevant (having the right skills, delivering good work consistently), affective trust (coming from feeling of emotional closeness, empathy or friendship) just weighs more: “we laugh together, relax together and see each other at a personal level, so that I feel affection or empathy for you and you feel the same for me, that makes me trust you“*

One more thing: in such cultures, when affective trust is built, in case of mistakes people tend to let it slide more easily

POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Build a relationship with decision makers (and not only, they also get feedback from your other colleagues), by getting to know them?outside business context.?

The easiest way is by sharing meals or drinks.

Find common interests. Find opportunities to go out with them.

But it is important to be authentic.

If you find the above approach inacceptable, it might be less frustrating to join a company with a task-based trust - e.g. from US, Denmark, Germany or UK. So that, even if things are ok now, you increase the odds that the behavior won’t change with your next boss.

The 5 to 15 Minutes Leeway

BEHAVIOR: You are holding a recurring meeting with people from other departments. It’s irrelevant to start the meeting until everyone is there.

OBSERVED RESPONSE: You notice that some people are consistently 5 to 15 minutes late, although it's not always the same individuals.?

You feel this causes wasted time for those who arrive on time.

POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: This is similar across all of these 3 cultures, due their approach to scheduling: 5 to 15 minutes leeway is deemed acceptable for many meetings, allowing for minor delays without disrupting the overall agenda. In more formal or time-sensitive situations punctuality is usually expected.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Due to the similarity in perception across cultures, it’s possible that this is not an issue to the other participants.

If you consider this impacts the meeting effectiveness, raise it with the other participants, emphasize the effects and get to a decision on the matter. After a decision is made, stick to it.

If the decision is that small delays are acceptable, use that time for chit-chat - strengthen your relationship with other participants.

The Inconclusive Meeting

BEHAVIOR: You receive an invitation to a meeting with a clear agenda. Despite having a busy schedule, you make room for it because the topics are important to you.

OBSERVED RESPONSE: The meeting starts off following the agenda, but then the discussion veers off into topics you feel are irrelevant. As a result, the meeting gets sidetracked and ends without reaching any conclusions.

POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Also related to all 3 cultures flexible-time scheduling approach: what was considered a priority when the agenda was drafted might have been superseded by a higher priority this week.?

When evaluating this, you need to consider also the leading style - for highly hierarchical cultures, it’s only the boss who evaluates the priorities.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Try to identify what was the change in priorities that impacted the meeting agenda - you can gently ask about it.

Identify how that change in priorities impacts you and adapt to the current topics.

As all 3 cultures put an emphasis on relationships, it is generally viewed negatively to leave the meeting earlier just because you consider the topic irrelevant for you.

The Delayed Prerequisites

BEHAVIOR: You plan a project delivery timeline and get agreement to some prerequisites deadlines - dependencies from other people/teams -? in order to match a delivery date.

OBSERVED RESPONSE: It often happens that the deadline for your prerequisites arrives, but nothing has been delivered to you, which leaves your project blocked and in risk to miss your own deadline.?

When you reach out to the responsible teams or individuals you previously agreed with, you discover that they are only just now beginning to prioritize that work over their other tasks.

POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: This is common across all of these 3 cultures, due their approach to scheduling: adaptability and flexibility are considered key assets for a manager, in order to match the constant changing nature of business. Opportunities are constantly evaluated and priorities change accordingly.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Adapt: identify the communication flow and subscribe in order to be informed about priorities changes.?

Communicate in-turn: make clear in advance, to the teams you depend on, what is the impact in case they are late. Include the project sponsor in the communication.?As their deadline approaches, send them a friendly reminder.

The Ignored Mail/New Process

BEHAVIOR: You send a long mail explaining e.g. a new procedure or reporting some experiment results

OBSERVED RESPONSE: Your mail is ignored, you notice no one even read it

ROMANIAN/FRENCH team:

• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Persuasion wise, the Romanian and French cultures are similar - individuals have been trained to first develop the theory, and only then present facts (as you noticed in this article).
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: 1st emphasize shortly? how the procedure benefits/impacts the recipient. Then explain the “why”. Then the “how”.

ISRAELI team:

• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Persuasion wise, Israelis are very practical, they focus on the facts and how to implement
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Start your mail with concrete facts and continue with means to implement (the “how”). Ideally avoid theory. If possible include a TL;DR, ideally emphasize it.

The Ignored Business Idea

BEHAVIOR: You have an impactful idea for the business. You propose it to someone who can make it happen - not your direct boss.

ROMANIAN/FRENCH management chain:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: 1st, kudos that you had the guts to approach the bigger boss. However, endless discussions will start for you and your supervisors on why you skipped levels. The original idea might get lost in the process.
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Both Romanian and French leading styles are highly hierarchical. The boss distances himself from subordinates. When talking cross departments it is also expected to match hierarchical levels
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Follow hierarchy - address the idea to your supervisor. He has the option to either filter it out or pass it along.?Or at least consult with him prior to making the proposal. Or at least copy him in the mail, if communication is via mail.

ISRAELI management chain:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: you are listened to and encouraged. If it’s a good idea it might be soon implemented
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Israeli leadership style is egalitarian.?Big boss applies an open door policy and is easily approachable. Individual initiative is appreciated. Emphasis is on teamwork and achievements together.
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: No need ???But it’s your responsibility to filter out irrelevant stuff.

The Request for Autonomy

BEHAVIOR: You need more autonomy to perform better in your role. You provide this feedback to your boss

ROMANIAN/FRENCH management:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: you are told to follow the current approaches and processes ‘cause they are better AS IS
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Both Romanian and French leading styles are highly hierarchical. This means the boss is expected to be the provider of solutions - the best boss is a strong director who leads from the front. Organizations structures are multilayered and fixed.
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Be a high performer and you’ll get more local autonomy. Even after you proved with results, have low expectations for things to change globally.

ISRAELI management:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: you are listened to, appreciated and usually you get to try what you asked
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Israeli leadership style is egalitarian. The best boss is a facilitator among equals. Organizational structures are flat. It’s encouraged to move to action without supervisor’s approval.
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: No need ??

The Denied Process Improvement

BEHAVIOR: You have a good idea for a process improvement. You propose it to your direct supervisor

ROMANIAN/FRENCH management:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: your supervisor either ignores it or, at best, explains to you why the idea is not good/relevant for your team. Variant: a few days later his boss asks him to implement the exact same idea. He presents it as an excellent idea and enforces its implementation, justifying its relevance.
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: In both Romanian and French cultures decision making is rather top-down - meaning they are made quickly, by the boss (because highly hierarchical). As new information arises, decision can be changed (but also by the boss)
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: In case your idea is implemented, be glad about the outcome and think less of the means. In case your idea is not implemented, it’s generally due to objective or subjective?reasons that no one thought to communicate to you. Take it as a learning experience, catch your supervisor in a good mood sometimes and ask casually about the context.

ISRAELI management:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: you are coached regarding expected improvements and encouraged to try the idea and if it yields expected results to extend it to other teams.
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Israeli culture is slightly more consensual. This, combined with their egalitarian leadership style, can sometimes determine the “facilitator” attitude from the boss, that allows for a slower decision making process + time to get people on-board - if it shows potential.
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: No need ?? But you’ll generally end up responsible for the idea’s implementation. Make sure it is worth your extra time!

The Inefficient Process Proposal

BEHAVIOR: As a team member you are invited to a meeting by a higher manager and presented a new process that you expect to have a really bad impact on your performance. You challenge the approach

ROMANIAN/FRENCH boss:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: You are ignored with an irrelevant response, maybe even frowned upon.
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Due to a combination of factors: leading style, deciding mechanism, and disagreeing. Decision was already? taken, before the meeting, by the boss or a group of higher managers. You are now expected to find ways to implement it. Challenging the presenter after the decision was taken might make him (and possibly everyone else) feel uncomfortable and that they are wasting time.
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: “Disagree and commit” is the best approach here.

ISRAELI boss:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: If you’re making a good point, the decision implementation is postponed until issues are clarified.
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Due to their confrontational approach to disagreeing and more consensual decision making, many Israelis feel that a meeting is good if the various viewpoints were discussed and debated. Purpose is to put on the table as much information as possible in order to confirm the robustness of a proposal.
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Bring data and facts to the table. But expect that finally things might not get your way, at which point “disagree and commit” is the best approach as well.

Asking Tough Questions

BEHAVIOR: You go to an all-hands meeting and, given opportunity for Q&As, ask some tough questions

ROMANIAN/FRENCH boss:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: you are given some polite answers, but then complaints arrive to your direct supervisor. If he doesn't strongly support you/you’re unlucky, you might even be blacklisted for any future promotions or raises.
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Both Romanian and French leading styles are highly hierarchical, with a strong emphasis on the boss's status. It’s generally seen as inappropriate to disagree with or put the boss in a difficult position, especially in front of others.
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Depending on your relationship with him, ask the questions to your supervisor, privately. If he doesn't have the answers, accept the situation.

ISRAELI boss:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: If the questions are relevant, you'll get some answers. If not, they’re usually ignored and forgotten. In the worst case, the boss might make an offhand joke at your expense in front of everyone.
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Israeli leadership style is egalitarian. It’s ok to disagree with the boss even in front of others
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: No need ?? But ideally ask questions that are relevant also for other people in the room and appropriate for the speaker’s role.

The Crickets

BEHAVIOR: As a manager, you bring up a problem that your subordinates frequently complain about and ask them to suggest a better solution.

ROMANIAN/FRENCH team:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: The reaction from the team? Crickets. At best, the senior members might mention after a while something not far from the current approach.
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Probably a combination of factors: leading style, deciding and disagreeing: probably the solution they think about contradicts a previous directive by you (see in above rows details on leading styles traits), and they feel they risk the relationship/team harmony by saying what they truly think.?As you can see from the graph, in Romanian culture the problem is more acute (more hierarchical, more top-down, less confrontational).?French are very comfortable to disagree and stay friends, but not with the boss.
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Think about a few solutions, ask them if they have any additional ones (to make sure the solutions are at least going in the right direction).? And put them to a vote. Continue to follow-up on the problem, with an iterative approach. Alternative approaches: 1.Tackle the problem in 121 meetings with each member of the team, gather solutions, then plan a meeting with all to explain the context and selected solution. 2.Anonymous survey to get solutions, then vote on them (not always effective, depending on the problem).
• If you don’t have an official role as manager, but are an expert leading the team, you won’t have this problem in French culture.

ISRAELI team:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: People argue lively, til it becomes obvious what the vast majority prefers.
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Considering the same combination of factors, in Israeli culture people are very comfortable to say what they think. The deciding part might be the most challenging in this situation - to make sure everyone got it right.
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Play your facilitator part well: make sure everyone who wants to say something s heard and there is proper understanding and agreement on the decision.

The Disturbing Behavior Feedback Reaction

BEHAVIOR: A colleague has a repeated behavior that disturbs you. You tell him about it.

FRENCH/ISRAELI reaction to feedback from ROMANIAN colleague:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: He reacts well, but he doesn’t change one bit
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Your message might have been too subtle, especially if using the “read between the lines” technique. He might have missed your whole point. French and Israelis are used to give and get negative feedback more directly than Romanians.
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: Be more clear about the purpose of the conversation and how his behavior impacts your relationship and both your interests. Come prepared with some concrete examples. Here is a funny example of feedback from a more indirect culture (British) to a more direct one (Dutch).

ROMANIANS reaction to feedback from FRENCH/ISRAELI colleague:

• OBSERVED RESPONSE: He doesn’t react well - either starts to avoid you or escalates you.
• POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Your behavior might be seen as inappropriate, or even conflictual and insensitive. While Romanians often believe they focus more on the negative, they tend to be more indirect when giving negative feedback compared to the French and Israelis. They often deliver it in a way that requires reading between the lines or use the 'sandwich' method, where criticism is cushioned between positive comments.
• POTENTIAL SOLUTION: When giving feedback, do it in private.?Use downgraders like “sort of”, “a little”, “maybe”.?Include at least something honestly positive in your feedback.

*Note: Texts in italic are quoted from Erin Meyer’s book “The Culture Map”

Addendum

You may have noticed that I relate more closely to the behaviors of Israeli people in the examples above. This is my personal perspective, and I believe it stems from a greater similarity between my personality traits and their culture. In other words, I’ve encountered more challenges within French and Romanian cultures ??

Based on a test by Erin Meyer, below are my traits compared to the average Romanian: