The Culture Map Erin Meyer Pdf

[Zita Lifland]

WhenI first moved to Europe, my new Swedish boss, Per Engman, introduced himself as a typical consensus-building manager. Conscious of my American roots, he explained that this was the best way to ensure that everyone was on board and he hoped that I would be patient with this very Swedish process.

As with all cultural characteristics, these differing styles of decision-making have historical roots. American pioneers, many of whom had fled the formal hierarchical structures of their homelands, put emphasis on speed and individualism. The successful pioneers were those who arrived first and worked hard, regarding mistakes as an inevitable side-effect of speed. Americans therefore, naturally developed a dislike for too much discussion, preferring to make decisions quickly.

In a consensual culture, it is the decision-making that may take a long time, since everyone is consulted. But once the decision is made, the implementation is rapid, since everyone is on board. And once the decision is made, it is fixed. Once the group makes a choice, the decision is unlikely to change. A decision with a capital D, one might say. A good example of this phenomenon is the Japanese ringi decision-making process, a very consensual decision-making protocol.

Jack Sheldon, a British executive who attended a seminar that I ran for Astellas, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, shared stories about his mishaps while trying to work with Tokyo-based managers. Following a problem with a particular product, a decision had to be made regarding whether to discontinue its development. Sheldon was invited to Tokyo to give his view, which was strongly that testing should continue.

Both consensual and unilateral styles of decision-making can be effective, but members of a global team generally have expectations about decision-making based on their own cultural norms. This can make clashes difficult to understand and manage. If you find yourself working with a team more familiar with consensual decision-making, try applying the following strategies:

1) Expect the decision-making process to take longer and involve more meetings and correspondence

2) Be patient, even when opinions diverge

3) Check in with your counterparts regularly to show your commitment

4) Cultivate informal contacts within the team to monitor the progress of decision-making

5) Resist the temptation to push for a quick decision

If your team includes members from both a consensual and unilateral decision-making culture, problems could be avoided by explicitly discussing and agreeing upon a decision-making method during the early stages of collaboration. Consider defining the parameters of the ultimate decision: whether it should be by vote or by the boss; whether 100 percent agreement is needed; and how open the group will be to later changes. The more those on both sides of the cultural divide talk to each other, the more natural it becomes to adjust to one another.

I totally adhere to the concept that describes Culture as a key component of success in any organization, however big or small. Culture drives most behaviors. Unfortunately, it is still the most ignored and disregarded.

Yet another fascinating article on a cross-cultural team!! The concept of bouncing ideas off colleagues prior to meetings and accordingly selling/convincing them on a particular concept is common to more than a few eastern cultures; but a situation immediately comes to mind:

Different cultures have different expectations when handling feedback, with some offering (and expecting) more direct negative feedback, while others are more indirect. Below is a figure from the book showing countries across this spectrum.

A good example of this is America. While Americans are known as very explicit (low context) communicators, they are more indirect in giving negative feedback. In my own experiences, this resonates with many other Anglo-Saxon cultures, where giving negative feedback about a situation is often associated with judging or labelling someone.

In this dimension, different cultures approach discussion and arguments differently, with some first looking for or starting with theories (concept-first) and others looking for or starting with examples (application-first). Below is a figure from the book showing countries across this spectrum.

Countries with a concept-first focus, such as the French and Italians, tend towards deductive arguments, focusing on theories and complex concepts before presenting a fact, statement, or opinion. Others, notably Anglosaxon cultures, tend toward inductive arguments, first focusing on the practical application before moving to theory.

Although leadership expectations might be more egalitarian or top-down, decision-making is a separate element and is best highlighted by the stark contrast in Japan. While Japan is typically more hierarchical compared to other countries, culturally, it also has a very consensual decision-making system. This is called the ringi-system, which involves building consensus at a lower level before bringing proposals to a higher level. Nemawashi is a similar concept, which is the process of quietly laying the foundation of some change by talking to the people concerned and gathering support before a formal announcement.

In task-based cultures, trust develops as long as you do good work. This is very situation-dependent, and trust can be quickly built and lost. In relationship-based cultures, work relationships are not quickly built. In relationship-based cultures, people might be paired to a particular task solely on their relationship and not necessarily their aptitude to do the work.

For me, this aspect feels similar to the Evaluating aspect previously covered. Still, it is broader about how different cultures approach conflicting opinions, with some countries more confrontational and others tending to avoid confrontation. Below is a figure from the book showing countries across this spectrum.

The last cultural difference highlighted in the book is how countries approach time and schedule, with some being more sequential or linear and others being more flexible. Below is a figure from the book showing countries across this spectrum.

I am reminded of this cultural difference when I think of courses I held in Germany compared to courses in Brazil. With courses in Germany, participants typically arrive well before the workshop or very much on time. In Brazil, I remember several people turning up to 30 minutes after the start and one person casually walking in one hour after the start!

Unlike the Meyer-Briggs test, which is proven to be little more than a horoscope, I still believe these research-based models offer some value. I have personally found these models helpful for building empathy, tailoring communication and adjusting situations to be more inclusive.

Erin emphasized that successful companies like Netflix, Amazon, and Google are driven by cultures that actively address and manage the inherent tensions and dilemmas in the workplace, rather than just promoting absolute positives like integrity.

She advocated for a shift from a control-based to a culture-led approach in business, where innovation and flexibility are prioritized to quickly adapt to market changes. This approach involves reducing strict controls and allowing more employee autonomy, fostering a dynamic environment that encourages creativity and rapid problem-solving.

So that was the complex part of it for me was trying to figure out like how can I take all of this kind of these different attributes of this culture and figure out you know why and how they work together and then put them in some kind of model or system so that other organizations could learn something from them? So that took about three years in the end, but yeah it was a lot of fun, complex fun.

But so, disagree and commit, it tells us, it says okay, you know what, you should disagree as strongly as you feel it up until the decision has been finalized, and then once the decision has been finalized then you should stop disagreeing and you should, you know, jump on board and commit. So, you can really see the tension right in there.

Erin Meyer: Yeah, so I mean I think my kind of overarching learning from all of this was just to recognize how the vast majority of companies today are operating with this, like this industrial era hangover. And what I mean by that is of course during the industrial era we were all obsessed with error elimination, consistency, and replicability. And if you are leading a manufacturing plant today or you are working in some kind of safety-critical industry, those are still your goals, right? Consistent replicability, error elimination.

Here for the first time, Hastings and Erin Meyer, best-selling author of The Culture Map and one of the world's most influential business thinkers, dive deep into the controversial philosophies at the heart of the Netflix psyche, which have generated results that are the envy of the business world. Drawing on hundreds of interviews with current and past Netflix employees from around the globe and never-before-told stories of trial and error from his own career, No Rules Rules is the full, fascinating, and untold story of a unique company making its mark on the world.

In The Culture Code, Daniel Coyle goes inside some of the world's most successful organizations - including Pixar, the San Antonio Spurs, and the US Navy's SEAL Team Six - and reveals what makes them tick. He demystifies the culture-building process by identifying three key skills that generate cohesion and cooperation and explains how diverse groups learn to function with a single mind.

When Elon Musk was a kid in South Africa, he was regularly beaten by bullies. One day a group pushed him down some concrete steps and kicked him until his face was a swollen ball of flesh. He was in the hospital for a week. But the physical scars were minor compared to the emotional ones inflicted by his father, an engineer, rogue, and charismatic fantasist.

3a8082e126