Erin Meyer Culture Map Explained

[Mirtha Shikles]

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.

Principles-first (deductive) reasoning starts with theories and general concepts first, and moves on to specific facts and illustrations second. By contrast, applications-first (inductive) reasoning starts with factual observations and stories from the real world to draw broader conclusions about the said world. To persuade others you may use a mix of principles-first and applications-first reasoning. But depending on the type of education you received, the way you make a case will be different. The French art of intellectual persuasion is deeply shaped by the thse, antithse, synthse structure of argumentation (a progressions of ideas, in which the first idea is followed by a second idea that negates the first, and then the conflict is resolved by the third).

This method, known as the dialectical method, is also quite familiar to the Germans (yes, the French and the Germans do have a few cultural traits in common!). After all it is said to originate with the German philosopher Hegel (who actually used the triad concrete, abstract, absolute) and mostly with German philosopher Johann Fichte. The French and the Germans both like to start with rules and theories to make their case. By contrast, Americans prefer to start with examples and stories. And they like to focus on what theories mean in concrete terms for real people.

How do you know what it means to be French, German, Dutch, English, American or Japanese? Of course there\u2019s more to it than just living in the said country and speaking its language(s). But culture is very elusive. You might not really see your culture until you\u2019re confronted with different ones. Until then you\u2019ll want to attribute every behaviour to personality rather than culture.

\u201CWhen you are in and of a culture\u2014as fish are in and of water\u2014it is often difficult or even impossible to see that culture. Often people who have spent their lives living in one culture see only regional and individual differences and therefore conclude, \u2018my national culture does not have a clear character\u2019,\u201D Erin Meyer explains in The Culture Map.

A couple of weeks ago, my essay titled \u201CNavigating across cultures and getting ready for the future of work\u201D resonated with many of you (it\u2019s the most viewed newsletter so far with more than 5,000 views!) In it I mentioned how impressed I had been with Erin Meyer\u2019s book and offered to dedicate a newsletter to her \u201Cculture map\u201D. I\u2019ll try and apply it to my own journey of cultural (self) discovery, i.e. how I discovered I was actually very French \uD83C\uDDEB\uD83C\uDDF7. Perhaps this essay can help you examine your own cultural dispositions and communicate, live or work better with people from other cultures.

As a child I was raised (mostly) by my German mum. And like immigrant children who want to fit in, I was embarrassed by my mother\u2019s (slight) German accent, her grammar mistakes and her culturally different behaviour. (Today I\u2019m so happy I didn\u2019t have two French parents!) On top of it, it was the 1980s and I would still get so many remarks about the Nazis, the \u201Cugliness\u201D of the German language, and lots of anti-German sentiment (Germanphobia) from the French around me. But at least back then the best French students would learn German at school (France\u2019s elitist school system valued German because it was supposed to be more challenging and elitist).

3a8082e126