1-Page Summary

Introduction: The Eight Ways to Measure Cultural Differences

In an increasingly globalized world, understanding other cultures is an essential business skill. In The Culture Map, Erin Meyer presents eight axes you can use as a framework to analyze these differences: Communication, Feedback, Thinking, Leadership, Decision-Making, Trust, Disagreement, and Time Perception.

Meyer positions countries on each axis, each of which represents a range of possible behavior between two extremes. Each country's position represents the midpoint of acceptable behaviors in that country, which Meyer contends is enough to account for both individual and regional differences within a country. (Shortform note: Meyer bases these positions on anecdotes and personal experience. Her lack of outside research may be due to the difficulty of empirically measuring cultural differences: Cultural factors would influence any study methodology, so the study would be flawed.)

By understanding both your own and another culture's position on each axis, you can relate to each other better so that you can accomplish your business goals. You are also better able to evaluate others accurately: You learn which misunderstandings are due to cultural differences instead of incompetence. (Shortform note: The idea that you can't evaluate a culture's position on the axis independently is known as cultural relativity. Don't confuse this with cultural relativism—“the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make judgments using the standards of one’s own culture.”)

Meyer visually represents the axes in a “culture map.”

(Shortform note: Some reviewers find Meyer’s culture map overly complicated and confusing. We’ve modified and streamlined the culture map to make it easier to interpret and use. You can find Meyer’s map by reading The Culture Map or purchasing access to her mapping tool on her website.)

In this guide, we’ll explain each axis, how these differences developed, and strategies you can use to mitigate any cultural differences.

Axis #1: High-Context vs Low-Context Communication

Meyer defines the two extremes of communication as high-context and low-context.

Meyer defines low-context cultures as cultures where people communicate and receive messages at face value. The speaker explicitly states all relevant information because it’s her responsibility to communicate her message clearly. In contrast, high-context cultures don’t communicate at face value—rather, you read between the lines. These people share cultural understandings about etiquette, so the speaker doesn’t need to be explicit; the listener is responsible for decoding the underlying meaning. (Shortform note: Meyer uses the terms high- and low-context only to describe how people communicate messages. Their original usage was much broader, encompassing views on relationships, territory, time, and more.)

According to Meyer, language is one factor that shapes a culture’s communication style. Higher-context languages share several features that make ambiguous statements more possible, including a low number of total words and a high number of words that can have multiple meanings. The opposite is true for lower-context cultures: Their languages have a high number of total words and fewer words that can have multiple meanings. English-speaking countries cluster at the low-context end of the axis, countries that speak Romance languages cluster in the middle, and Asian countries cluster toward the high-context end of the axis. (Shortform note: Meyer’s assertion that language shapes culture is supported by the story of Korean Air, who made in-air communications lower-context by switching their language from high-context Korean to low-context English.)

The other defining factor is history: Low-context cultures tend to be younger and ethnically heterogeneous, so there are fewer cultural norms that are universally understood. In contrast, high-context cultures tend to have a long history and be ethnically homogeneous. As such, Meyer posits, they’ve had more time to develop social norms and unspoken rules of communication that are universally shared within the culture. (Shortform note: This isn’t a hard-and-fast rule. Meyer considers India a high-context country. India has a long shared history, but it’s also extremely diverse and uses English as a common language.)

Strategies for Communicating Across Cultures

Meyer’s strategies for communicating in lower-context cultures all involve speaking more explicitly than you might be comfortable with. Ask questions when you’re unclear on the meaning and to ensure your message has been properly delivered. (Shortform note: Try, “Do you have any questions?”) Recap what was said at the end of the meeting and follow up with an email. (Shortform note: Email etiquette varies between cultures, but try following the email etiquette of the U.S., the world's lowest-context culture.)

In contrast, Meyer’s strategies for higher-context communication mostly involve interpreting the message and understanding your own unintentional hidden messages. Ask open-ended questions to clarify your understanding—even in places you wouldn’t normally think to, like scheduling. Pay attention to subtext by listening carefully and looking at body language. (Shortform note: Just be careful. Body language differs among cultures, and active listening may be too explicit for higher-context people to be comfortable with.) And explain why you’re writing things down—this may be viewed as a sign of distrust in higher-context cultures. (Shortform note: Alternatively, avoid writing things down unless absolutely necessary.)

But according to Meyer, the most potential for miscommunication lies between two people from different high-context cultures: Both look for subtext, but the cultural norms by which that subtext is informed differ drastically. Ensure your team’s success by having your team create a low-context communication method. Clearly articulating the communication method before you do any work will help prevent potential misunderstandings. (Shortform note: Meyer states that the team members need to understand why the low-context process exists, but she doesn’t explicitly state why the team members need to create the communication method. Presumably, members need to help create the method so they fully understand what they need to do. If someone else creates the process, high-context individuals may still look for hidden messages in why they’ve been asked to communicate this way.)

Axis #2: Direct vs Indirect Negative Feedback

Meyer defines the two extremes of feedback, or evaluation, as direct and indirect negative feedback.

According to Meyer, people from cultures that prize direct negative feedback state negative feedback clearly and explicitly. In contrast, Meyer states that cultures that use indirect negative feedback tend to deliver their messages in a subtler manner, often couching these messages in positive affirmations and using words to mitigate their feedback. But it’s so subtle that the receiver might not register the feedback as negative at all. (Shortform note: Negative feedback has several benefits, such as potentially improving your argument. Indirect feedback may be even more effective because you have to take more initiative to learn from and implement it.)

Strategies for Giving Feedback Across Cultures

When giving feedback, Meyer recommends some generally applicable strategies: First, explain how your culture normally provides feedback so that others can interpret your feedback in the way you intended. Second, don’t try to imitate the other culture. As an outsider, you don’t understand the subtle rules of etiquette every culture has or other factors (like hierarchical leadership) that complicate how cultures deliver feedback. (If you’re in a direct negative feedback culture, you can try using one extra strengthening word, like “totally.”) (Shortform note: Meyer repeats both these strategies throughout her book, suggesting that transparency and respectful imitation are essential cross-cultural business skills.) Finally, when you receive direct negative feedback, copy these cultures and view directness as a sign of respect instead of getting offended. (Shortform note: If you struggle with this, learn to cultivate a growth mindset.)

A culture’s place on the communication spectrum complicates effective feedback delivery. For example, the U.S., the U.K., and Canada present unique challenges because they’re low-context cultures that fall in the middle of the feedback spectrum. In these cultures, Meyer recommends that you make your positive feedback as clear as your negative feedback, finding even the smallest element to praise truthfully. And time your feedback strategically by always expressing your positive feedback first and maintaining a 50:50 ratio of positive to negative feedback. (Shortform note: Your employees may still struggle even if you follow these strategies: After all, Americans may prefer a 80:20 ratio of positive to negative feedback.)

Similarly, If you’re in a high-context culture with indirect negative feedback, Meyer suggests three main strategies. First, deliver your feedback gradually so your subordinate can piece the picture together on their own. Secondly, take the focus off the feedback by taking the subordinate out to lunch—making feedback the crux of the conversation intensifies it. Finally, don’t mention the negative. By praising only the positive, your subordinate will infer your negative feedback. For example, praise the thing they did well in the first half of the meeting that they struggled with in the second half. (Shortform note: If you’re not confident in your ability to follow these strategies effectively, deliver your feedback in writing instead, which may be more comfortable for high-context, indirect-feedback cultures.)

Axis #3: Empirical vs Theoretical Cultures

Meyer first divides how cultures think into two categories: holistic (or dialectical) and specific (or analytical). She then divides how Western cultures think into two extremes on her axis: empirical (applications-first) and theoretical (principles-first).

Dialectical vs Analytical Thinking

In cultures that think dialectically, people tend to focus on the overall situation. Instead of focusing on individual elements, they emphasize the relationships between individual elements. In business, this focus on relationships is evident in longer responses to questions (because they’re focused on the big picture, people might present related information first before giving their final answers). Meyer suggests that most Asian cultures think dialectically because of the Chinese philosophies that influenced them. These philosophies tend to value balance between individual elements. Furthermore, they consider objects in context instead of considering the object independently. (Shortform note: Alternatively, Asian countries may tend toward dialectical thinking because of their high-context communication styles. Since high-context cultures have few explicit communication rules, these cultures consider many factors at once when determining how to act. As such they’re far more used to encountering contradictions—which results in a greater acceptance of contradictions and a tendency to think dialectically.)

In cultures that think analytically, people tend to focus on the individual element or action. Unlike dialectical cultures, they de-emphasize the surrounding circumstances. (Shortform note: In business, you might see this in how people from these cultures evaluate risk—they “expect...the world to be stable” since they focus on only one element.) Meyer argues that the analytical thinking of Western countries derives from Western philosophy, which assesses objects independently without necessarily considering them in the overall context. (Shortform note: Alternatively, the “social orientation hypothesis” suggests that cultures that prize independence tend to think analytically, while cultures that prize interdependence tend to think dialectically.)

Theoretical vs Empirical Thinking

Meyer also divides analytical Western cultures into two types: theoretical and empirical. Theoretical thinkers trend toward deductive reasoning when they persuade—so they’ll first formulate a general hypothesis from which they deduce a conclusion. In business, a cultural pattern of theoretical thinking translates to a heavier emphasis on the reasons behind a problem. Conversely, empirical thinkers use inductive reasoning—they look at the data first and then they draw conclusions. In business, a cultural pattern of empirical thinking translates to a heavier emphasis on applying practical solutions to problems. (Shortform note: Both reasoning styles have their benefits, such as when teaching a language. Inductive approaches may be better for learning grammatical structures that repeat, but inconsistent grammatical patterns benefit from more deductive approaches.)

Meyer argues that several factors influence how a culture thinks, notably their education and philosophy. Empirical Anglo-Saxon countries were heavily influenced by the philosophers Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon, who popularized empirical thinking. (Shortform note: Despite their similar names, Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon were total strangers who lived centuries apart.) Conversely, theoretical Latin European countries still teach children to persuade with a three-step Hegelian method (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) that the children grow to expect as adults. (Shortform note: Interestingly, philosopher Friedrich Hegel didn’t enumerate the method into 3 steps.)

Strategies for Presenting Information Across Cultures

Meyer suggests several ways to alter your presentation style to convince different kinds of audiences with different ways of thinking:

• Provide specific details about each project to analytical thinkers. (Shortform note: But not too much, which will bore them.)
• Tell dialectical thinkers how their project will impact their coworkers. (Shortform note: You could also try appealing to their sense of duty to some broader unit (family, company, country).)
• Use more case studies when presenting to empirical thinkers. Include practical examples when presenting to theoretical thinkers, too, but spend more time on theory and prepare for more theoretical questions. (Shortform note: If this involves a different type of thinking than you’re used to, practice. Can you think of theoretical questions to ask? If so, you’ll be better able to answer them.)

Axis #4: Hierarchical vs Egalitarian Leadership

Meyer contends that you can divide leadership styles into two extremes: egalitarian and hierarchical. In egalitarian cultures, everybody is equal​​—even in the workplace. Companies tend to have flat organizational structures, and people treat each other the same regardless of rank. Conversely, rank matters in hierarchical cultures. Companies have strict levels, which employees follow by deferring to the higher-ranking individual. In exchange for obedience, the boss protects and cares for her employees—especially in Asian cultures.

(Shortform note: So which one is better? Most people think that they'll prefer egalitarian leadership styles. But in actuality, one Stanford study suggests that people prefer hierarchical leadership styles because the familiarity of hierarchical relationships makes them easier to understand. Whereas egalitarian relationships can be confusing to navigate, in a hierarchy, everyone’s roles and level of authority are clear.)

Meyer hypothesizes that the leadership style of a culture reflects the ideals of the religions, philosophies, and empires that historically dominated them. For example, modern-day egalitarian cultures are historically Protestant (a religion that values the individual’s relationship with God), while modern-day Western hierarchical cultures are historically Catholic (a religion strictly governed by the hierarchical Roman Catholic Church). (Shortform note: Meyer’s argument is supported by the fact that several key features of Protestantism elevate the role of the individual, while, historically, even the rulers of Catholic countries had to answer to the Pope and were thus bound by hierarchy.)

Strategies for Leading Across Cultures

Meyer separates her strategies both by the culture’s leadership style and your rank in that culture. If you’re working in a hierarchical culture, pay attention to the various ways people express rank. Call people by their last name unless indicated otherwise. (Shortform note: Since many hierarchical cultures have language tenses that indicate politeness, when speaking English, using last names may be one of the few immediate ways you can show respect.) Conversely, if you’re working in an egalitarian culture, get comfortable speaking to everybody. (Shortform note: Comic visualization can help you feel less intimidated.)

If you’re leading in a hierarchical culture, mentor and protect your subordinates well—their obedience isn’t permission to treat them poorly. (Shortform note: This ideal may be universal, as one article attributes it to the American 1967 business book Organization in Action.) Similarly, understand that people won’t feel as comfortable around you as you might be used to. Strategies like informing people before a meeting that you’ll want their opinion will help them prepare how to present them in advance. (Shortform note: You could also try soliciting anonymous opinions with a dummy email account, so people can express their thoughts without fearing that they’ll disrespect you.)

Conversely, when leading in egalitarian cultures, work to establish that you’re “one of the guys.” You can use external cues to indicate this, like dressing more casually or using first names. (Shortform note: Social mirroring suggests that we unconsciously copy people we like, so subtly copying others can make them like you.) Meyer also suggests that acting as a facilitator both in meetings and when helping employees set objectives will help your employees feel more comfortable. (Shortform note: Meyer recommends facilitating goal-setting as part of the 5-step Management by Objective method, a framework originated by management expert Peter Drucker. Modern-day versions of this framework usually recommend setting SMART (Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic, and Time-Bound) goals.)

Axis #5: Consensus vs Individual Decision-Making

Meyer suggests that decision-making styles range across two extremes: consensual (which we’ll call consensus) and top-down (which we’ll call individual).

In countries that decide by consensus, the group takes everyone’s opinion into account. All the relevant parties consider all the information, and they make a decision only when everybody agrees. (Shortform note: Meyer doesn't specifically define consensus, which is generally defined as almost unanimous with some dissenting opinions. Acceptable dissent differs by country, so learn what consensus means where you’re working.) So decisions take a long time but are final once made. (Shortform note: This long decision-making process could have serious financial detriment.)

In countries that decide individually, the decision-maker may consider others’ opinions, but ultimately, the individual (usually the boss) makes the decision. These cultures tend to make decisions quickly and early in the proces. But even after it’s made, the decision remains flexible and open to change based on new information or new opinions. (Shortform note: This may also be a feature of low-context cultures. Some suggest that low-context cultures are more likely to notice how objects differ, so they’re also more likely to believe that a ‘best choice’ exists. As such, they might be more open to changing their decisions.)

Mostly, hierarchical countries decide individually, and egalitarian countries decide by consensus. (Shortform note: Meyer also discusses some notable exceptions, like Germany and Japan, whose decision-making styles may have influenced the industries they dominate.)

Strategies for Making Decisions Across Cultures

Meyer’s strategies for working in cultures that decide by consensus mostly involve getting used to how much time decisions take and using that time to your advantage. She recommends building time for a longer decision-making process into your schedule and practicing patience when talks stall. She also suggests fostering positive relationships with your business partners so you’re not surprised by the decision, as well as making sure you’re comfortable with the process being used. (Shortform note: Make this process more comfortable by building trust with your business partners and holding your meetings in places conducive to reaching a consensus. And study how your unconscious assumptions might influence your comfort with the process.)

In contrast, Meyer’s strategies for working in cultures that decide individually mostly involve understanding your role on the team. If you’re not the leader, check your ego—don’t get offended when people don’t ask your opinion, and follow all decisions even when you disagree. If you are the leader, make decisions faster than you’re used to—others’ opinions are valuable, but if you wait too long you’ll come across as inefficient and weak. (Shortform note: Meyer recommends more strategies based on the culture’s leadership style here.) And no matter your rank, always remain flexible because decisions can almost always be changed. (Shortform note: Try becoming more flexible by practicing radical open-mindedness.)

Axis #6: Cognitive vs Personal Trust

Meyer divides trust-building methods into two extremes: task-based, which we’ll call cognitive, and relationship-based, which we’ll call personal.

According to Meyer, in cognitive cultures, trust develops based on behavior—like whether someone’s good at their job. Business relationships remain professional and don’t bleed into personal connections. In contrast, the cornerstone of business relationships in personal cultures is affective or personal trust—the trust that people of all cultures feel towards their family and friends. So while people build relationships slowly, this connection lasts across jobs. (Shortform note: Researchers suggest that trust has three parts: competency, honesty (or integrity), and benevolence, the idea that someone is acting in your best interests. It’s likely that although both types of cultures value honesty, cognitive cultures place a higher value on competence and personal cultures place a higher value on benevolence.)

Meyer suggests that the legal systems of cultures inform how they build trust. Cognitive cultures tend to have established legal systems: If someone wrongs you, you can sue them and reasonably expect justice, so your personal relationship isn’t that important. (Shortform note: Lawsuits aren’t common: People worry that if they sue their employers, they might never get hired again.) In contrast, personal cultures tend to have less reliable legal systems: Even if someone wrongs you, suing them wouldn’t help. By investing time into building your personal relationship upfront, you’re better able to assess their character and feel more confident that they won’t exploit you should something go wrong. (Shortform note: Other benefits of investing time into your work relationships may include more engagement at your job.)

Strategies for Building Trust Across Cultures

Meyer’s strategies for building trust in cognitive cultures mostly involve efficiency: Shorten your meals to under 90 minutes and pick efficient ways to communicate like emailing instead of calling. (Shortform note: Try choosing your communication method based on how quickly you need an answer.) However, her strategies mostly focus on building affective trust, which she contends are more generally useful: Personal relationships are better-suited to working cross-culturally because people are more likely to forgive and teach you about your inevitable cultural error. (Shortform note: Studies show that affective trust is beneficial in cognitive cultures, too.)

Meyer’s strategies for building affective trust mostly involve ways to connect with the other person. If you can, visit, and socialize by spending time on meals, finding mutual interests to bond over and turning your professional self off when you go out. If you can’t visit, spend more time on the phone and follow the other person’s cues by letting them direct how the phone calls progress. (Shortform note: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, more people have been working remotely, making in-person visits difficult and presenting unique challenges for building affective trust. Some strategies include creating a virtual hang-out space or video chatting to feel more bonded to one another.)

Axis #7: Open Disagreement vs Disagreement-Avoidant Cultures

Meyer divides disagreement styles across two extremes: “confrontational,” which we’ll call open disagreement, and “avoids confrontation,” which we’ll call disagreement-avoidant.

According to Meyer, cultures that disagree openly view disagreement as good for the group. Disagreement is inevitable when ideas are freely exchanged, as they must be for innovation to occur. People disagree with you frankly and publicly, but these open disagreements aren’t viewed as personal attacks. (Shortform note: Just as cognitive cultures tend to have reliable legal systems, cultures that disagree openly may as well: If damaging your personal relationship doesn’t strongly affect your business dealings anyway, more open disagreement would likely be acceptable. In support of this, many cultures that disagree openly also develop trust cognitively.)

In disagreement-avoidant cultures, openly disagreeing with someone will harm your relationship. Disagreement is bad for the group and is viewed as a personal attack because it causes people to lose face. In these cultures, people express disagreement subtly and privately. (Shortform note: Stella Ting-Toomey, who developed face-negotiation theory in 1985, was the first to propose that all cultures care about their ‘face,’ or image, but use different behaviors to protect or attack it—an idea Meyer also expresses in her book.)

Meyer suggests that a culture's disagreement style reflects the philosophy that influenced it. Cultures that disagree openly teach the Hegelian method in school, which influences how they disagree as adults. (Shortform note: Meyer only cites the Hegelian influence in France, but the fact that other theoretical countries also disagree openly suggests the Hegelian influence on disagreement style is broader.) Similarly, disagreement-avoidant Asian countries reflect Confucian beliefs about society: people must follow their prescribed roles in society or else society breaks down. So to disagree openly with someone is to suggest they’re not being true to their prescribed role and is thus far more taboo. (Shortform note: Meyer doesn't discuss why Latin American and Middle Eastern cultures avoid disagreement, calling them only “sensitive and easily bruised.” Historically, both regions highly value honor and experience public shame, which may explain why they avoid public disagreement in the modern world.)

Meyer suggests that most cultures that disagree openly are equally open with their emotions, while disagreement-avoidant cultures are emotionally reserved. However this isn’t a hard-and-fast rule: While all of us express emotions in our faces and mannerisms, their frequency and intensity is dictated by culture. (Shortform note: The rules that govern these norms are known by psychologists as “cultural display rules.”)

Strategies for Disagreeing Across Cultures

To evaluate where a culture lies on the disagreement spectrum, ask yourself: How much would openly disagreeing with someone harm your relationship? Ignore how emotionally open they are.

Meyer also suggests that different cultures have three different overarching ideas about the purpose of meetings, so you should adjust how you disagree accordingly. In cultures that meet to formalize a decision, disagreeing at the meeting is too late— do so privately well before the meeting takes place. In cultures that meet in order to make a decision, expect to leave with an answer even if some debate occurs. Finally, in cultures that meet to learn about what you're deciding on, expect vigorous, open debate. (Shortform note: Meyer’s idea that meetings have three purposes has limited outside support and is based on her own unpublished survey data. However, When Cultures Collide also suggests that different cultures have meetings for different reasons.)

Axis #8: Monochronic vs Polychronic Time Perception

Meyer divides time perception, which she calls scheduling, across two extremes: linear-time, or monochronic, and flexible-time, or polychronic.

According to Meyer, monochronic cultures value a fixed, linear schedule. These cultures focus on one thing at a time and value punctuality (although lateness is generally acceptable up to a point). They run on “clock time,” eating lunch at noon because it's noon. By contrast, polychronic cultures work on several things at once, adhering to schedules only broadly. They run on “event time,” eating lunch when they’re hungry. (Shortform note: A third way of perceiving time may be “cyclical time”: Time runs in cycles, so decisions aren’t as unique since the opportunity will always come again.)

A great way to evaluate how a culture perceives time is to look at how it approaches meetings. Monochronic cultures follow a previously defined agenda, remain engaged throughout the meeting, and disapprove of tangents. Polychronic meetings are more flexible: Topics change based on that day’s priorities. Multiple conversations occur simultaneously as tangents crop up and the relevant individuals discuss it. Participants aren’t expected to focus on the meeting at the expense of all other priorities. (Shortform note: Is one more productive than the other? Although studies argue that multitasking destroys productivity, they’re mostly held in the monochronic U.S. and may not apply to polychronic cultures. And monochronic meetings aren’t necessarily better: Death by Meeting presents several strategies for making meetings less tedious.)

Meyer suggests that cultures perceive time differently based on how industrialized they are. More predictable cultures tend to be more monochronic. In these cultures, governments run reliably and natural disasters rarely inhibit your business. According to Meyer, this is because the Industrial Revolution caused people to prioritize punctuality: if you were late, the factory didn't run properly and you cost the company money. (Shortform note: Hall originated the idea that monochronic cultures began with the Industrial Revolution.)

In contrast, cultures may become polychronic because their countries are unpredictable. When governments are unreliable and natural disasters shut down your business, companies and managers succeed by adapting to unpredictable circumstances and by keeping employees loyal in times of hardship. When relationships and adaptability take priority, schedules become less important and thus more flexible. (Shortform note: In fact, one paper suggests that polychronism may inhibit industrialization by contributing to corruption and inefficiency.)

Strategies for Scheduling Across Cultures

Meyer recommends several generally applicable strategies to use when working with cultures that perceive time differently. First, adjust your schedule to the other culture, especially when you’re the visitor. This may take time to get right, so experiment until you find what works. Secondly, If you’re leading a team, set clear expectations about scheduling among team members to reduce frustration. Finally, withhold judgment. Scheduling is particularly vulnerable to cultural superiority, as both types think the other’s way is wrong. But the only correct way to perceive time is the one that works for you. (Shortform note: These strategies are all applicable more broadly to dealing with other cultures. Meyer may pinpoint them here partly because adjusting your schedule is easier than adjusting other ways you do business or because people are particularly judgmental about scheduling.)

What to Keep in Mind to Work Effectively Across Cultures

In her epilogue, Meyer describes how you can use the axes to compare cultures. Specifically, Meyer recommends looking at all eight axes simultaneously. Evaluate where each culture lies on each axis. Then, ask yourself: On what axes are these cultures similar? Where are they furthest apart?

In order to mitigate the frustration caused by cultural differences, focus your attention on the axes that lie furthest apart. Follow the strategies presented in this book to prevent misunderstandings from forming and/or address issues that have already begun.

(Shortform note: Meyer uses the visual of the “culture map” to help the reader combine these scales. While visual learners may find this helpful, it’s not necessary, and may be visually confusing, to draw a line connecting all the axes. It’s sufficient to look at each of the eight axes independently to evaluate which need the most attention.)

Meyer also recommends several general strategies for working across cultures. For example, she suggests that when people understand that their culture influences how they work, they become better at working with people from different cultures. So talk about these cultural influences, making sure to use grace, humility, and humor throughout the conversation. (Shortform note: If the idea of having such a conversation intimidates you, try explaining why it could be mutually beneficial.)

Of course, such a strategy only works if you understand your own culture. This is another essential strategy Meyer recommends: Only when we first understand how our culture is unique in some capacity can we appreciate and work with the differences in other cultures. (Shortform note: Meyer focuses exclusively on national cultures. But looking at what other kinds of cultures—our gender and generation, for example—have influenced us is also an essential business skill.)

Finally, remember that while culture is an essential piece of the puzzle, it is only a piece. Our personalities aren’t defined exclusively by culture, but we are all heavily influenced by the cultures we grew up in. So in an increasingly globalized world, the ability to discern between individual quirks and evidence of a cultural pattern is an essential leadership skill. While this can be greatly challenging, it can also be greatly rewarding, as you learn new practices and ways of thinking that enrich your life.

(Shortform note: If culture is just another piece of the puzzle, it follows that learning to become a better leader in general can also improve your effectiveness at managing people across cultures. But as we’ve seen, effective business leadership differs among cultures, so following traditional Western business advice may backfire. We’ve previously suggested reading business/leadership books from the country you’ll be working with. But for more generally applicable leadership advice, consider reading Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. Since the original text is geared towards military conflict in Asia, you may find it easier to interpret these strategies to fit an intercultural context than you would a regular business book.)

Shortform Introduction

As globalization transforms the business landscape, understanding other cultures is more important than ever before. But how do you develop such an understanding—especially if you’re working with several cultures at a time? In The Culture Map, cultural communication expert Erin Meyer addresses this question by providing a comprehensive framework you can use to analyze cultures across eight different dimensions. She also provides explanations for how and why certain cultural norms developed, and she presents strategies businesspeople around the world can use to address and mitigate the harmful impacts of cultural misunderstandings.

About the Author

Erin Meyer is a professor at INSEAD, one of the world’s top international business schools. The Culture Map was her first book. She is also the co-author of the 2020 New York Times bestseller No Rules Rules: Netflix and the Culture of Reinvention.

Connect with Erin Meyer:

• Website
• Twitter
• PublicAffairs

The Book’s Publication and Context

Publisher: PublicAffairs

The Culture Map was published in 2014 by PublicAffairs and became a bestseller. It also established Meyer’s international reputation as a cultural expert: Her 2015 Harvard Business Review article on international negotiation, “Getting to Si, Ja, Oui, Hai, and Da,” was the publication’s most-read article of the year.

Intellectual Context

Meyer isn’t the first to attempt to use a multidimensional framework to explain cultural differences. Beginning in 1959, American anthropologist Edward T. Hall published several books examining how various cultures viewed specific concepts differently. In 1980, Dutch management researcher Geert Hofstede examined this in a visual manner with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory. Finally, the Netherlands's Alfonsus Trompenaars and Britain’s Charles Hampdens-Turner popularized a framework of how these cultural frameworks affect business and management with their 1997 publication of Riding the Waves of Culture.

Meyer builds on and adapts all of these frameworks in her book. Her work is also sometimes compared to Richard Lewis’s When Cultures Collide, a 2005 tome by a British cross-cultural expert. Meyer doesn’t provide in-depth analysis of individual countries the way Lewis does. Rather, she provides a framework that readers can use to assess any culture even if she doesn’t cover it. Her visuals also help readers assess the magnitude of cultural differences.

The Book’s Strengths and Weaknesses

Critical Reception

Online reviewers who appreciate the book like that it provides an easily digestible, broad framework for evaluating cultures on their own. They were able to apply actionable strategies to both their personal and professional lives, and they enjoyed the visual format Meyer uses to present her ideas.

Online reviewers who find fault with the book think that Meyer relies too heavily on personal anecdotes from her time at INSEAD and fails to provide concrete evidence for her argument. Some think that identifying cultural norms without sufficient evidence perpetuates harmful cultural stereotypes. Reviewers also mention that Meyer focuses too heavily on some regions and neglects others, specifically Central and South America and Africa.

Commentary on the Book’s Approach

Meyer's book repackages many of the ideas presented by Hall, Hofstede, Trompenaars, and Hampdens-Turner. Sometimes, she cites their work in the book, and she thanks them in her Acknowledgments at the end of the text. However, she often makes claims based on their ideas without citing their work. This may explain why many reviewers thought that Meyer didn't provide sufficient evidence for her claims.

As noted, throughout the book, Meyer relies heavily on anecdotes from her seminars and lectures, and she doesn’t always provide rigorous research to back up her claims. The narrative elements make her work easily digestible, but her lack of research is problematic: Not only has Meyer failed to publish any peer-reviewed research on her claims, she also admits to changing identifying details of the people involved in her anecdotes in order to protect them. Consequently, Meyer asks for a huge amount of trust from her reader—and not everybody gives it to her.

Finally, it’s true that Meyer mostly focuses on Europe, Asia, and the Anglo-Saxon countries. But as this is a business book published by an American company, it makes sense that Meyer focuses most on the cultures that Americans are most likely to encounter in the business landscape. And it’s not that she ignores other regions completely—her chapter on scheduling, for example, focuses extensively on Nigeria.

​Commentary on the Book’s Organization

Meyer starts the book with an introduction that explains how she developed this framework, why it's necessary, and how to interpret it. She then devotes one chapter to each of eight axes of cultural difference, explaining what the axes are, how they developed, and how to work with people from axes that are opposite to yours. Each chapter also includes several anecdotes that demonstrate real-life applications of Meyer’s teachings. Finally, in her epilogue, she synthesizes her teachings visually and presents several general strategies her reader can use when working across cultures.

Our Approach in This Guide

In this guide, we’ve focused on Meyer’s most impactful ideas rather than her anecdotes, explaining each axis, how and why these cultural patterns develop, and actionable strategies you can use when working with cultures that differ from yours.

We’ve also addressed the common complaint that Meyer’s claims lack evidence by providing explicit links between her ideas and the academic sources they’re based on, as well as supplementing these claims with outside research. Furthermore, we’ve presented alternate theories about how cultural differences affect business where Meyer’s aren’t universally accepted.

Introduction: The Eight Ways to Measure Cultural Differences

In an increasingly globalized world, understanding other cultures is an essential business skill. However, there are few systematic methods for analyzing and dealing with specific cultural differences.

In The Culture Map, Erin Meyer defines eight areas in which cultural differences are most likely to lead to misunderstandings in business communications. She also theorizes about why such differences occur and presents strategies for working with people from different cultures. According to Meyer, when you have a thorough understanding of cultural differences and methods to navigate them, you can avoid misunderstandings and be more successful in your business and management dealings.

How Cultural Competence Saves Lives

Understanding other cultures is important not only in business but in healthcare as well—in fact, it’s so important that healthcare workers first created the term “cultural competence.”

Healthcare depends on proper communication between the doctor and patient. But a lack of cultural understanding complicates the message and causes wires to cross. For example, a patient who comes from a culture where doctors are high-status may not express her questions about her diagnosis for fear of embarrassing the doctor. A culturally unaware doctor may interpret this silence as a sign that the patient fully understands her diagnosis—resulting in this doctor unintentionally providing subpar medical care. So it’s critical for healthcare workers to understand the cultures of the people they may encounter.

The Eight Axes of Cultural Difference

According to Meyer, there are eight major axes on which cultures can differ: Communication, Feedback, Thinking, Leadership, Decision-Making, Trust, Disagreement, and Time Perception.

Meyer has developed scales, which we’ll call axes or spectrums, as a way to visualize the degree of difference in each category. On each axis lies a potential spectrum of behavior, and each end of the axis is the direct opposite of the other end. For example, on the Disagreement axis, one end of the axis represents “confrontational,” while the other end represents “avoids confrontation.” Similarly, on the Feedback axis, one end represents “direct negative feedback,” while the other end represents “indirect negative feedback.” Meyer positions countries on each axis based on anecdotal evidence and her research at INSEAD.

(Shortform note: As discussed, Meyer asks for a huge amount of trust from her readers: She doesn’t reference any peer-reviewed studies from INSEAD. A potential reason for Meyer’s lack of research is the difficulty of empirically measuring cultural differences. Any study methodology would likely be flawed because the methodology itself would be influenced by cultural factors. Furthermore, studying every country in the world is a colossal undertaking.)

Meyer visually represents the axes in a “culture map.”

While a great resource for visual learners, some readers find Meyer’s culture map problematic. The most common critique is that, in her chapter on Thinking, Meyer uses the axis only to explain cultural differences in thinking among Western cultures. Asian cultures, according to Meyer, use a third form of thinking that she doesn’t represent on an axis. Therefore, the visual is ineffective for determining cultural differences between non-Asian and Asian cultures. Other reviewers find the visuals overly complicated and confusing.

We’ve modified and streamlined the image of the culture map to make it easier to interpret and use. You can find Meyer’s map by reading The Culture Map or purchasing access to her mapping tool on her website.

We’ll devote a chapter to each cultural axis.

Critiques of Meyer’s Approach

Some argue that, even in a relatively homogenous culture, the behaviors deemed “acceptable” in that country may vary widely, so you can’t accurately locate the culture of a country at a single point on an axis. However, Meyer argues that while individual and regional differences do exist, they still fall under a countrywide spectrum of acceptable behavior. Therefore, we can place a culture on the axis by finding the midpoint between the extremes of what people consider appropriate in that culture. She further asserts that this range encompasses both regional and individual differences in a country.

(Shortform note: Evaluating cultures based on a midpoint seems reasonable. However, Meyer doesn’t share the range of behaviors she considered for each country. It’s possible for cultures to share the same midpoint even if their ranges differ dramatically. Imagine that the range of acceptable behavior in Culture A ranges from negative five to five, but in Culture B it ranges from negative one to one. Zero is the midpoint of both these ranges. So by Meyer’s logic, these two cultures have the same midpoint even though the first has a lower range of acceptable behavior. Given this fact, Meyer’s use of the midpoint could be misleading.)

A crucial element of understanding how to use these axes is cultural relativity. Cultural relativity is the idea that you cannot evaluate a culture’s position on the axis independently. You can only evaluate it in relation to another culture’s position on that same axis.

For example, say you’re from Country A and working with someone from Country B. If both countries A and B tend to avoid confrontation, you might assume that you don’t need to worry about cultural misunderstandings in the disagreement category. However, if Country B is slightly more confrontational than you are on the axis, assuming that Country B works exactly like yours could be problematic. What matters is not where Country B lies on the axis, but how far away it is from Country A.

(Shortform note: Although cultural relativity and cultural relativism sound similar, these terms express opposite concepts. In academia, cultural relativism is “the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make judgments using the standards of one’s own culture.” Although Meyer doesn’t recommend judging the other culture, her scale is most effective if you have another culture to compare it to.)

In her introduction, Meyer also addresses two common criticisms of her work. First, many argue that attributing people’s traits to culture reinforces stereotypes, so you should ignore cultural influence and evaluate people individually. But Meyer argues that this is counterproductive. Even if we’re unaware of them, we all have cultural biases. So you might think you’re evaluating someone independently of cultural influence—but in reality, you’re evaluating them based on your own cultural norms. In order to accurately assess someone’s actions in the workplace, you need to know how culture influences both you and the people you’re working with.

(Shortform note: If you’re already fairly culturally competent, you may not think you need further cultural education. In this case, you may want to consider cultural humility instead. Coined in the healthcare field, cultural humility refers to the idea that understanding other cultures is a lifelong learning process: Even the most culturally aware people are still susceptible to unconscious biases. Luckily, research shows that we can start to change our own biases once we understand them. Strategies for discovering and combating our own biases include taking association tests and diversifying the perspectives around you so you have a better understanding of how others view the world.)

The second common criticism is that lots of people grow up multiculturally, so Meyer’s framework isn’t sophisticated enough to encounter everybody you’ll meet in the workplace. But in her introduction, Meyer suggests that by reading her book, multicultural people can learn how the various cultures they grew up with influenced their personalities. For example, someone who grew up in France and Canada might communicate like the French but follow Canadian ideals about leadership. So Meyer’s framework does encompass multiculturalism—but you have to evaluate each axis individually instead of all eight together.

(Shortform note: This probably works up to a point—for example, if you or your parents immigrate to a different country, you could assess how two different cultures affected your upbringing. But we now live in a world where several different cultures can influence someone. For example, you could have parents from two different cultures, grow up in a third culture, then spend most of your career in a fourth culture. So while Meyer’s suggestion makes sense to a degree, it may be more trouble than it’s worth for some people.)

Exercise: Understand Your Cultural Baseline

How aware are you of cultural differences? (We’ll revisit this situation at the end of the guide, so you can see how much you've learned.)

• Pinpoint a specific problem you have (or have had in the past) when working with someone from another culture. Describe one situation in detail.

• What frustrates you about this situation? (Did the other person behave in a way you didn’t understand? Did they disagree with you or fail to communicate important information?)

• Why do you think the other person behaved this way? (If you’re frustrated that your co-worker keeps CC-ing your boss on all your emails, you might write, “I think she’s doing this because she thinks I’m incompetent.”)

• Based on this situation, what axis do you think is going to be most applicable to your work life, and why?

Chapter 1: Communication Across Cultures

Learning how to communicate effectively is essential for good business. But contrary to popular belief, the techniques for good communication vary depending on the place you’re in.

In this section, we’ll discuss the two extremes of communication styles, how each is perceived by people from outside the culture, and how a culture’s language and history shapes its communication style. Finally, we’ll present strategies for working well with people whose communication styles differ from yours.

Two Types of Communication: High-Context and Low-Context

Meyer places cultures on a communication spectrum and defines the two extremes as high-context and low-context.

Low-Context Cultures

Defining a Low-Context Culture

Meyer defines low-context cultures as cultures where people communicate and receive messages at face value. Both the speaker and listener act under the assumption that all relevant information has been explicitly stated.

In a low-context culture, the onus for communication lies with the speaker. If a misunderstanding occurs, someone from a low-context culture will find fault with the speaker because it was the speaker’s responsibility to communicate their message clearly.

According to Meyer, the United States is the lowest-context culture in the world. (Shortform note: The extent of the U.S.’s low-context culture is evident in its signposting—even in tiny towns, where everyone knows one another and the location of every local business, the streets have signs and the buildings are numbered sequentially. The onus is on the city to make sure that people get where they want to go.)

How Others Perceive Low-Context Cultures

If you interact with someone from a lower-context culture than yours, you might walk away thinking that person is overly blunt (because of how direct their communication style is) or condescending (because they’re explaining their ideas or instructions unnecessarily).

High-Context Cultures

Defining a High-Context Culture

Meyer defines high-context cultures as cultures where communication doesn’t occur at only face value. To communicate effectively in a high-context culture, you must read between the lines.

Meyer explains that people from high-context cultures have a shared cultural understanding, etiquette, and norms that influence their communication style. So both the speaker and the listener act under the assumption that not all relevant information has been explicitly stated. They assume that there is an underlying message and that the listener must look for it.

In a high-context culture, the onus for communication is shared between the listener and the speaker. If a misunderstanding occurs, the fault lies with the speaker for not communicating effectively, but also with the listener for not interpreting the message correctly.

According to Meyer, Japan is the highest-context culture in the world. (Shortform note: In contrast to the low-context U.S., high-context Japan has relatively little signposting—even in big cities like Tokyo, there are streets without names and buildings without numbers. The onus is on the individual to make sure she gets where she wants to go.)

How Others Perceive Low-Context Cultures

Meyer states that if you interact with someone from a more high-context culture than yours, you might walk away thinking that person is bad at communicating or purposefully hiding information to spite you.

The Origin of High- and Low-Context Cultures

Meyer uses the terms “high-context culture” and “low-context culture” exclusively to describe how people communicate messages. In contrast, when anthropologist Edward T. Hall developed the terms in the 1930s, his usage was far broader: The original theory compared different views on relationships, territory, time, and learning in addition to social interaction.

For example, Hall thought that people from high-context cultures defined their identity with groups, thought of spaces as communal, resisted strict scheduling, and valued accuracy most when learning. In contrast, he thought that people from low-context cultures were more individualist, thought of spaces as private, loved strict scheduling, and valued speed most when learning. As we’ll see, Meyer discusses some of these distinctions in later chapters, but she doesn’t refer to them as high- and low-context.

Interestingly, Hall was a major influence in the field of cultural frameworks. However, some researchers argue that his theory has yet to be supported by empirical evidence.

How Language and History Shape a Culture’s Communication Style

According to Meyer, two of the defining factors that shape a culture’s communication style are language and history.

Language

English-speaking countries cluster at the low-context end of the axis, countries that speak Romance languages cluster in the middle, and Asian countries cluster toward the high-context end of the axis.

Meyer correlates the number of words in a language, the number of words that can have different meanings, and the number of expressions related to “reading between the lines” with a culture’s communication style.

A higher number of words is associated with lower-context cultures, while the reverse holds true for higher-context cultures. (English has 500,000 words, whereas French, a high-context culture, only has 70,000.) A higher number of words may correspond to a lower-context culture because when you have more words, you’re far more likely to find one that matches your meaning exactly, so you can create a clear and direct statement.

Similarly, higher-context cultures tend to have more words that can have different meanings. (Japanese has many words that mean different things in different contexts and also many homonyms. English has very few.) A higher number of homonyms and words that mean different things in different contexts may correspond to a higher-context culture because there is more potential for ambiguous statements—so listeners have to depend on context to interpret these statements.

Finally, higher-context cultures tend to have more expressions that are related to “reading between the lines.” (In French, both the expressions “sous-entendu” and “deuxième degré” refer to the idea that there is a second meaning that hasn’t been explicitly stated.) It’s possible that higher-context cultures need more expressions about “reading between the lines” because it’s a more commonly used skill in those cultures.

The Life-Saving Power of Switching Contexts

Meyer’s assertion that language shapes a culture’s communication style is supported by the story of Korean Air detailed in Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers. Korean Air drastically improved their safety record by making English the language of in-air communications.

South Korea is a high-context culture. When the crew spoke in Korean, the constraints of their high-context language didn’t permit them to use direct language with a superior. So the flight crew used only mitigated speech to warn the captain of a 1997 Korean Air flight about the dangers of his landing approach. He didn’t interpret the underlying message correctly, and the crew thought speaking more directly was culturally unacceptable—resulting in a plane crash that killed 228 people.

But the switch to English removed the notion that it was the listener’s responsibility to interpret what was said to them and allowed the South Korean crew to communicate more directly when lives were at stake. If switching to a low-context language creates low-context communication even in a company from a high-context culture, it's likely that language shapes people’s communication styles.

Why Context Matters in Translation

In business, we see this interplay of language and cultural communication styles most often in translation. When translating documents from high-context cultures, a literal translation isn't always enough because even if the words are technically accurate, the meaning isn't the same. Conversely, translated documents from a low-context culture may confuse people from high-context cultures, who will persist in looking for underlying meanings where they don't exist. As translation company Ulatus points out, these miscommunications are avoidable if you have culturally fluent translators. But as machine translation comes to dominate the translation landscape, it's an issue we should all keep in mind.

History

Meyer also defines a country’s history as an important factor that shapes its communication style.

Low-context cultures tend to be younger and ethnically heterogeneous, so there are fewer cultural norms that are universally understood. The United States, which Meyer classifies as the world’s lowest-context culture, is both very young and immigrant-heavy.

In contrast, high-context cultures tend to have a long history and be ethnically homogeneous. As such, Meyer posits, they’ve had more time to develop social norms and unspoken rules of communication that are universally shared within the culture. Japan, which Meyer classifies as the world’s highest-context culture, is 98.5% ethnically Japanese, is an island nation, and was isolated from the world for 214 years.

(Shortform note: History doesn’t always determine whether a culture is high or low context. Meyer considers India a high-context country. While India does have a long shared history, it’s also extremely diverse and uses English as a common language. And in fact, one University of Helsinki paper posits that although India is traditionally a high-context culture, its communication style is becoming more low-context. Potential reasons include India’s globalization, specifically in trade, technology, television, and travel. The paper also suggests that Indians tend to be more talkative and direct than other traditionally high-context countries, which may support its shift to a lower-context culture.)

Strategies for Communicating With People From Different Cultures

When the Person Is From a Higher-Context Culture Than Yours

Listen more. As you listen, Meyer recommends focusing on interpreting the subtext of what your conversation partner is saying. And don’t repeat yourself! This can come across as unnecessarily condescending, according to Meyer.

(Shortform note: As Meyer notes, active listening is a technique used effectively in low-context cultures. She probably doesn’t suggest it in higher-context cultures because active listening depends on each person being as explicit as possible and actively correcting misunderstandings—not common features of high-context communication.)

Pay attention to the other person’s body language. (Shortform note: But body language differs depending on the culture! Study the body language of the culture you’re in to avoid misunderstandings.)

Ask more questions. Specifically, ask open-ended questions to clarify your understanding of what is being said. Meyer urges persisting until you’re sure about the meaning. (Shortform note: This tip also applies to situations in which you wouldn’t normally think of asking open-ended questions, like scheduling. One strategy is to ask, “How can I help you get this done by X?” instead of “Can you get this done by X?” And pay close attention to the answer! Words like “try” or “probably” often mean no.)

Assume the best in others. Remember, people from higher-context cultures are (most likely) not trying to manipulate you. You may be tempted to think they’re bad communicators. But their communication style works in their culture. It just doesn’t work in yours. (Shortform note: Consider this: Sometimes, the communication you find so confusing is what others prize about their companies/cultures. In a Harvard Business Review article, Meyer describes how Louis Vuitton employees viewed the company’s high-context communication style as key to their success.)

Explain why you’re writing things down. People in high-context cultures can interpret the act of writing things down as a sign you don’t trust them. Meyer suggests explaining that it’s a cultural difference. This will help ease any potential misunderstandings. (Shortform note: Alternatively, only write things down when absolutely necessary. Sometimes, it’s simplest to adjust your work style to the other culture.)

Ask for help. Meyer suggests explaining that you’re having trouble with the cultural difference and asking for help. This might come easier if you combine it with complimenting the other culture and making jokes at your own expense. (Shortform note: Not all humor is universal, so be careful. Self-deprecating humor, which exists in both Eastern and Western cultures, is probably your safest bet.)

When the Person Is From a Lower-Context Culture Than Yours

Be clear and specific. Follow the English maxim “say what you mean, and mean what you say.” (Shortform note: If you feel uncomfortable, remind yourself this is normal for the other culture. In these situations, it’s better to over-communicate than under-communicate.)

Ask questions. When you don’t understand what someone’s saying, don’t look for subtext in your conversation. Just ask! Meyer also recommends asking questions to determine whether your counterpart has understood your message, such as “Am I being clear enough?” (Shortform note: If this is too explicit for your tastes, try, “Do you have any questions?”)

Recap what was said, and follow up. People in lower-context cultures tend to write things down to make sure that ideas and processes remain transparent. Meyer recommends following this process: Review the content of the conversation, the action steps, and who’s responsible for each action step at the end of each conversation or meeting. You should also send a follow-up email with the same content to keep everybody informed. In this email, clarify any points you think the other person might have misunderstood during your conversation. (Shortform note: Although email etiquette varies between cultures, the American model is a good place to start since the United States is the lowest-context country in the world. This article suggests sending it shortly after the meeting, explains who to send the email to, and offers a template you can copy. Don’t forget the subject! The clearer it is, the more likely it will get read.)

When You’re Dealing With Members From Two Different High-Context Cultures

According to Meyer, the biggest potential for miscommunication lies between two people from different high-context cultures. This is because both are looking for subtext, but the cultural norms by which that subtext is informed differ drastically.

Meyer states that you need a low-context communication method for your team to be successful. In order for it to be as successful as possible, follow these principles.

#1: Create a low-context process first. Clearly articulating the communication method before you start doing any work is the most effective way to prevent potential misunderstandings. The goal is to be as explicit as possible on multiple levels to prevent misunderstanding.

#2: Let the team create the communication process. (Shortform note: Meyer states that the team members need to understand why the low-context process exists, but she doesn’t explicitly state why the team members need to create the communication method. Presumably, the team members need to help create the method so they fully understand what they need to do. If someone else creates the process, the team’s high-context members might still look into the underlying meaning of why they’ve been asked to communicate this way. They might even interpret the process as a sign their managers don’t trust them and take offense.)

How to Promote Candor

One way you can help your higher-context employees feel more comfortable with low-context communication is to create an environment where everybody feels more comfortable stating their opinions straightforwardly.

Creativity, Inc recommends promoting candor on the team by modeling and encouraging feedback that exposes flaws without attacking the creator or sounding demanding. We’ll cover feedback in more depth in the next chapter.

Chapter 2: Feedback Across Cultures

Although communication and giving feedback are highly interrelated, feedback, which Meyer calls evaluation, warrants its own axis in Meyer’s book.

The ability to deliver feedback on someone’s performance in a way the receiver understands is essential to both your and the feedback-receiver’s success: If you’re too indirect, the receiver might not understand its content. If you’re too direct, you may come across as cruel or incompetent.

In this chapter, we’ll first discuss the two main ways cultures give feedback. Then, we’ll present both general principles and strategies you should keep in mind when delivering feedback.

Two Types of Feedback: Direct Negative Feedback and Indirect Negative Feedback

Meyer places cultures on a feedback spectrum and defines the two extremes as direct negative feedback and indirect negative feedback.

As you read this section, remember that a culture’s position on the communication spectrum is not necessarily indicative of its place on the feedback spectrum. For example, the United States is the lowest-context culture in the world but lies in the middle of the feedback spectrum.

(Shortform note: Why are Americans direct in their general communication but indirect when it comes to giving feedback? It might be because giving feedback, particularly negative feedback, is more emotionally charged than most business communications. This is partly due to our fear that the feedback-receiver will react poorly. This fear may be evolutionary: We know that pain triggers a fight-or-flight response, and we don’t want to become that trigger. We don’t want to be a threat.)

Direct Negative Feedback

According to Meyer, people from cultures that prize direct negative feedback state negative feedback clearly and explicitly.

Meyer also states that these cultures tend to use strengtheners, which are words that strengthen the feedback, such as “totally” or “clearly.”

Furthermore, people from these cultures may deliver feedback publicly or jokingly. But someone who’s used to indirect negative feedback might perceive direct negative feedback as overly harsh or cruel.

(Shortform note: Negative feedback of all types offers benefits. A Harvard Business Review article points out that negative feedback improves your argument, especially when it comes from different fields: You’re forced to adjust and clarify your idea, which strengthens it. Negative feedback may also help you realize how much an idea matters to you. If you remain neutral when someone challenges your idea, it may not be as important or as good as you think.)

Indirect Negative Feedback

According to Meyer, cultures that use indirect negative feedback tend to deliver their messages in a subtler manner. They often couch these messages in positive affirmations.

Meyer also states that these cultures tend to use weakeners, which are words that mitigate or qualify the feedback, such as “slightly” or “in my opinion.”

Furthermore, these cultures usually provide feedback in private. If the feedback is for the group, it’s delivered to the group; if the feedback is for the individual, it’s delivered only to the individual. According to Meyer, this is especially true in high-context cultures and applies even in cases of positive feedback. In many high-context cultures, people dislike having attention drawn to them.

But someone who’s used to direct negative feedback might not understand that indirect negative feedback is negative at all because they find it to be too subtle.

(Shortform note: There are potential benefits to indirect negative feedback. One study suggests that indirect feedback might be more effective because if you receive indirect feedback, you have to take more initiative to learn from and implement it. Another study suggests that indirect feedback “prompts deeper cognitive processes and learning” and thus may “encourage autonomous learning behavior.”)

How to Handle Giving/Receiving Feedback in Different Cultures

Meyer divides cultures into four categories based on their positions on both the feedback and communication spectrums.

First, we’ll discuss the overarching principles that apply to giving feedback in a different culture. Because Meyer’s strategies for each of the four categories are slightly repetitive, we’ll then focus on strategies to use in two specific situations: low-context cultures that fall in the middle of the feedback spectrum, and high-context cultures that tend towards indirect negative feedback.

Principles for Giving and Receiving Feedback in Different Cultures

Principle #1: Be transparent about how you normally provide feedback.

Explain how you normally provide feedback and the cultural norms where you’re from so that others can interpret your feedback in the way you intended. (Shortform note: Meyer recommends being transparent about your own cultural norms repeatedly throughout The Culture Map. This indicates how important transparency is for communicating effectively in globalized business environments: You have to understand which aspects of your own business skills are culturally influenced.)

Principle #2: Don’t try to imitate the other culture.

If you try to provide more direct feedback than you’re used to, you might offend someone. Even in cultures that are used to direct negative feedback, Meyer notes, there are still subtle rules of etiquette that govern what’s acceptable and what’s offensive. As an outsider, you don’t have a clear handle on these rules. So you can try using one extra strengthener in your feedback, but to avoid offense, don’t go further.

(Shortform note: Another way to think about this is to find the “zone of appropriateness,” which is a concept used to describe the spectrum of acceptable behavior within a culture. Then, go one step further in either direction than is comfortable for you.)

You might also see isolated instances of direct negative feedback in cultures that tend to provide indirect negative feedback. Meyer explains that since many cultures with indirect negative feedback are also strongly hierarchical, there are situations in which managers provide direct negative feedback.

However, as an outsider, you don’t understand the complicated interplay between these factors so you’re better off not trying as you might offend someone.

(Shortform note: Meyer insists that you don’t want to imitate the other culture, but others state that there might be situations in which it is appropriate. To judge this for yourself, first ask: How flexible is the culture? Then, clarify what you’re trying to accomplish. How will imitation help or hinder this accomplishment? Starbucks designed their first Chinese stores to look like teahouses. But this attempt at cultural connection offended the Chinese, who had many tea houses already and craved the full Western Starbucks experience.)

Principle #3: Think of feedback as a gift.

People from direct negative feedback cultures tend to view this directness as a sign of respect: The other person respects them enough to be clear and honest with them.

So when you receive direct negative feedback, Meyer recommends, don’t assume they’re being cruel. Rather, take the feedback at face value and view it as a sign of respect.

(Shortform note: If you have trouble accepting direct negative feedback, you may want to cultivate a growth mindset. People with growth mindsets think that they can change and grow, while people with fixed mindsets think the personal qualities they’re born with are unchangeable.)

How to Give Feedback in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada

According to Meyer, the U.S., the U.K., and Canada present unique challenges because they’re low-context cultures that fall in the middle of the feedback spectrum. If you have subordinates from any of these countries, Meyer suggests the following strategies when providing feedback.

Strategy #1: Express both positive and negative feedback explicitly.

Make your positive feedback just as explicit and clear as your negative feedback. But this doesn’t mean you should lie. Find something that is truthful, even if it feels small to you.

Strategy #2: Time your feedback strategically.

Always express your positive feedback first. And consider how balanced your feedback is over time: If you express negative feedback twice over the course of one week, you should also express positive feedback twice.

(Shortform note: Even if you follow the principles above, you may find that your employee still struggles with your negative feedback. American business book Carrots and Sticks Don’t Work suggests providing a ratio of 80% positive feedback to 20% negative feedback, which implies that Americans might view even a 50-50 split negatively.)

How to Give Feedback in High-Context Cultures With Indirect Negative Feedback

Unlike the U.S., the U.K., and Canada, many countries have a high-context culture and give indirect negative feedback. In these cultures, Meyer suggests the following strategies:

#1: Give feedback gradually.

Instead of bombarding your subordinate with the message all at once, drip it bit by bit. Allow your subordinate to piece together the picture on their own.

#2: Take the focus off the feedback.

Meyer specifically suggests taking the subordinate out for food and drink. The point is to have something else you can focus on—making feedback the crux of the conversation intensifies it. Then, once you deliver your feedback, don’t mention it again anywhere else.

#3: Don’t mention the negative.

Praise the positive, and don’t touch on the negative at all. Your subordinate will be able to read between the lines and infer the negative feedback without you stating it directly.

For example, let’s say your direct report led a meeting that went very well in the beginning but stalled halfway through. Praise the thing they did well in the first half that they struggled with in the second half.

What to Do When Your Feedback Doesn’t Get Through

Even if you follow Meyer’s tips, you may still have trouble giving feedback effectively. The problem with de-emphasizing feedback, giving it gradually, and not mentioning negatives is that you risk the receiver not reading between the lines or not understanding the feedback correctly.

Some experts recommend hiring a “cultural translator” who can help explain the cultural norms of the country involved. If you have access to one, this might be a great way to ensure your evaluations are being delivered and perceived appropriately—and that you’re understanding your own evaluations correctly, too.

You may also find that it’s easier to give written rather than verbal feedback. One group consisting of both Japanese and non-Japanese professors suggests you take this approach in Japan, a high-context, indirect-feedback culture. Written feedback suggests authority and rule, which the Japanese find comforting in a workplace environment. The same article also suggests 360-degree feedback, which is both submitted and delivered anonymously. This helps people deliver and receive constructive criticism in a way that feels safe for all involved.

Exercise: Provide Better Feedback

Now that we’ve learned about cultural differences in both communication and feedback, let’s apply what we’ve learned to our own lives.

• Describe a situation where you provided feedback to someone from a different culture. How does this person’s culture assess and communicate? How does yours?

• Briefly describe the type of feedback and how you delivered it. Did you deliver it in person or by email? Was it negative or positive?

• How do you think the other person interpreted your comments?

• Was this interpretation the one you intended? If not, describe one strategy you can use in the future to avoid this misunderstanding.

Chapter 3: Thinking Across Cultures

The ability to persuade others effectively is an essential business skill. It allows you to sell your products effectively and convince your colleagues of your ideas.

But according to Meyer, different kinds of arguments persuade people from different cultures. In other words, what persuades you might not persuade someone from a different culture.

This is because each culture tends towards specific ways of thinking and reasoning about the world, even though most people are capable of all of them.

In this section, we’ll first discuss how Meyer divides Asian and Western thinking into two broad categories of thought. Then we’ll discuss the variations you see in Western methods of reasoning. Finally, we’ll present strategies you can use to effectively persuade people from different cultures.

Dialectical vs Analytical Thinking: How Asians and Westerners See the World DIfferently

First, Meyer divides how the world reasons into two broad categories: holistic and specific. We’ll refer to these categories as they’re more commonly known: dialectical and analytical.

Dialectical Thinking

Defining Dialectical Thinking

In cultures that think dialectically, people tend to focus on the overall situation. Instead of focusing on individual elements, they emphasize the relationships between individual elements.

Meyer cites several studies by Professors Richard Nisbett and Takahiko Masuda that illustrate this discrepancy. In one study, they asked both Japanese and American people to “take a photo of a person.” Photos taken by Americans tended to be close-ups, while photos taken by Japanese people depicted much more of the background. When asked, the Japanese person thought that the Americans had taken a photo of a face, not a person. In contrast, the Americans thought that the Japanese had taken a photo of a room, not a person. (Shortform note: When we replicated this study informally, we got the same results: The American took a photo of the face, while the Japanese person took a full-body photo. When asked about her photo, the Japanese person said: “If I had to describe a person to an alien, how could I do so with just a close-up of the face? I need the full body.” This was not something the American had considered at all.)

In business, this focus on relationships is evident in longer responses to questions. People might present related information first before getting to their answers. As such, people from other cultures might find that dialectical thinkers are missing or unable to find the point. At worst, they might think dialectical thinkers are doing so deliberately.

According to Meyer, most Asian cultures think dialectically.

How Western and Asian Dialectical Thinkers Differ

According to Nisbett, dialectical thinkers are more accepting of contradiction as a fact of life, so they often try to find the middle ground. Sounds great, right? But an acceptance of contradiction could be problematic in business. For example, you might have to convince dialectical thinkers that a problem needs solving at all.

But this acceptance of contradiction may be a feature of East Asian dialectical thinkers instead of Western ones. Although Westerners are also capable of thinking dialectically, studies suggest that Westerners and East Asians do so differently. Westerners think about the contradictions until they’re able to synthesize them, while East Asians aren’t as bothered by and generally more accepting of the contradiction to begin with.)

How Dialectical Thinking Develops

According to Meyer, cultures developed different ways of thinking due to the philosophies that dominated their culture.

She argues that the dialectical thinking of Asian countries derives from the Chinese philosophies that influenced them. Meyer states that Chinese philosophies tend to value harmony and balance between individual elements. Additionally, Meyer notes that Chinese philosophies don’t separate an act or object from the circumstances surrounding it. Rather, they consider both in concert.

She gives the example of the Chinese concept of yin and yang as support for both these ideas. Yin and yang are related to balance because they represent how dueling concepts like light and dark can actually be complementary. But they’re also related to holistic thinking because they must both exist—one can’t exist without the other.

(Shortform note: Although Meyer notes that yin and yang were developed by Taoists and influenced Confucian philosophies, she doesn’t mention that each philosophy favored a particular element of the yin-yang duality. The Taoists, whose philosophy emphasized seclusion, preferred the feminine yin, while Confucianism, which is primarily focused on the relationships in public life, favored the masculine yang.)

An Alternate Explanation for How Dialectical Thinking Develops

This paper suggests that Asian countries tend toward dialectical thinking not because of philosophical influence but because of their high-context communication styles. Low-context cultures have explicit rules, and they select which ones to follow in specific situations. So they only have to consider the situational factors relevant to their selected rule.

The rules of high-context cultures are far less explicit. So these cultures consider many factors at once when determining how to act, which means they’re far more used to encountering contradictions—which results in a greater acceptance of contradictions and a tendency to think dialectically.

Analytical Thinking

Defining Analytical Thinking

In cultures that think analytically, people tend to focus on the individual element or action. Unlike dialectical cultures, they de-emphasize the surrounding circumstances.

(Shortform note: In business, this might be seen in how they evaluate risk. Researchers argue that analytical thinkers “typically expect states of the world to be stable.” This could be because they focus on the individual element. Furthermore, “when change is occurring, such as a stock growing in value, change is presumed to follow a linear trend”—to the point where Canadians sold falling stocks and bought rising stocks, but Chinese people (perhaps counterintuitively to the Western mind) bought falling stocks and sold rising stocks because they assumed the change wouldn’t continue.)

Meyer states that a common criticism of analytical thinkers is that they ignore the overall context too much. Critics think analytical thinkers can’t see the overarching influences on their thoughts or the potential broader impacts of their actions, so they must be incompetent. Critics might also just think they’re rushing and ignoring those influences.

(Shortform note: As you go through this section, it’s important to remember what analytical thinking means in a cultural context. Many people interpret the phrase analytical thinking as thinking with an emphasis on structure, mathematics, or logic. But the key feature of analytical thinking is the tendency to consider something individually, de-emphasizing its relationship with the environment. It’s not a tendency to view something through a more mathematical lens.)

Why Analytical Thinking Develops

Meyer argues that the analytical thinking of Western countries derives from elements of Western philosophy.

Specifically, she states that Western philosophies assess objects independently without necessarily considering them in the overall context. As an example, Meyer describes how Aristotle ascribed the principles of levity and gravity to particular items—a falling rock had the property of “gravity,” while a floating log had the “levity” property. Rather than viewing “levity” as an interaction between the log and its environment, he saw it as a property of the log itself.

(Shortform note: Since this example comes from Aristotelian physics, it may not seem to support Meyer’s claim that philosophy influences culture. But Aristotle didn’t differentiate between physics and philosophy—he and his contemporaries studied “natural philosophy,” which encompassed both physics and philosophy. The two disciplines were indistinguishable until the development of natural science in the 19th century.)

Meyer argues that this common Western tendency to consider objects independently—as items with characteristics and not in relation to one another or to external forces​​—is the root of modern-day analytical thinking: Today’s Western businesspeople assess elements independently because their religions and philosophies did so, too.

(Shortform note: Another possible explanation for the difference in cultural cognition patterns is the “social orientation hypothesis.” It suggests that cultures that prize independence tend to think analytically, while cultures that prize interdependence tend to think dialectically. Researchers found that when Mexican farmers became more capitalist and thus more independent, they also thought more analytically.)

Two Types of Analytical Thinking: Theoretical vs Empirical Thinking

In addition to dividing the world into analytic and dialectic cultures, Meyer also divides non-Asian cultures into two broad patterns of thinking or reasoning.

Specifically, Meyer argues that Western and Latin American cultures tend to use either theoretical or empirical thinking. (Latin Americans and Germanic countries fall in the middle of this spectrum.)

In this section, we’ll describe each type of thinking and how they develop in different cultures.

Theoretical Thinking

Defining Theoretical Thinking

Meyer presents principles-first thinking, which we’ll call theoretical thinking, as the dominant reasoning method of certain cultures. Theoretical thinkers trend towards using deductive reasoning when they persuade.

When you reason deductively, you first formulate a general hypothesis or concept and then deduce a conclusion from this concept. One common example of deductive reasoning is this: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. As such, Socrates is mortal. You draw the final conclusion (Socrates is mortal) by combining the first two principles.

Meyer posits that in business, a cultural pattern of theoretical thinking translates to a heavier emphasis on the reasons behind a problem. If you give a presentation, a theoretical thinker might ask questions about the methodology you used to gather your data. Similarly, emails written by theoretical thinkers trend on the longer side. First, they present their initial principle. After elaborating on this principle, they’ll then present the biggest counterargument before concluding with the takeaway they want their reader to implement.

Criticisms of businesspeople who think theoretically may include that they are insufficiently practical, that they don’t cut to the chase quickly enough, or that they don’t implement recommendations without knowing why they’re given.

According to Meyer, Latin European countries tend to be theoretical thinkers.

How First Principles Thinking Drives Innovation

A similar type of thinking, which James Clear defines as “first principles thinking,” can drive innovation. In first principles thinking, you boil a problem down to only what is true and proven, aka its “first principle.” You then innovate by improving on one of those fundamentals.

Clear points to the rolling suitcase as an example. The Romans invented the wheel, but it wasn’t until 1970 that Bernard Sadow thought of combining it with a bag to make transporting suitcases easier. The implementation of other technologies, like zippers and the use of nylon, also improved the bag. But before Sadow, nobody had broken down the bag into “a thing you use to carry stuff from place to place,” and decided to improve on how exactly you moved the contents around. Clear elaborates on the importance of fundamentals in our personal lives in Atomic Habits.

How Theoretical Thinking Develops

Just as with analytical and dialectical thinking, Meyer argues that the pattern of reasoning that dominates in a theoretical culture was also influenced by philosophy.

One major philosopher Meyer pinpoints as a major influence on Latin European thought is France’s René Descartes. (Shortform note: Meyer points to Descartes’s views on scientific reasoning as evidence of his way of thinking, but a better way to explain his thought process might be this: Descartes is the originator of the phrase “I think, therefore I am”—perhaps the most classic example of deductive reasoning. The fact that Descartes’s views on theoretical thinking influenced how the French reason today is evident in the fact that France, Descartes’s home country, is one of the countries where theoretical thinking most dominates. It’s important to note that Descartes’s influence wasn’t limited to France: In fact, he’s considered the father of modern philosophy.)

Another philosopher Meyer identifies as important to cultures that think theoretically is Germany’s Friedrich Hegel. (Germany is more central on the spectrum than France, but still trends to the theoretical thinking end of the spectrum.) In the Hegelian method, you develop an argument first through the introduction of the thesis. The persuader then presents an antithesis, before resolving the tension with a synthesis.

(Shortform note: Interestingly, Hegel didn’t develop the terms (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) most associated with him. Philosopher Immanuel Kant created the terms, and philosopher Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus enumerated the three-step method. Hegel’s model used different terms: abstract, negative, and concrete.)

Meyer states that Latin and Germanic educational systems teach children to persuade with the Hegelian method. When these children grow up, they use—and expect—the same techniques in persuasive business communications.

(Shortform note: One Indonesian paper argues that Indonesian business schools need to teach more inductive studies. It states that inductive reasoning, where you look at the data and then draw conclusions, is essential in business—but Indonesian business school graduates don’t use it as well as possible because they were mostly taught deductive studies in school. As an Asian country, Indonesia isn’t on Meyer’s axis, but this paper does support Meyer’s argument that how schools teach reasoning impacts how a culture’s businesspeople think.)

Meyer also points out that countries that use theoretical thinking tend to have civil legal systems, which come from Roman and Napoleonic legal codes. In the modern-day civil legal system, generally, the judge is responsible for finding the facts. The judge then applies whatever law they think is necessary. In this way, a broader theory (the legal precept) is applied to the current situation (the facts of the case). As such, Meyer sees civil legal systems as further evidence that theoretical thinking predominates in a country.

(Shortform note: Meyer specifically notes that European Union (EU) countries use civil law, but that may be changing. EU countries are also bound by EU law, which sometimes replaces their national laws, but EU laws do not follow civil legal systems. As EU countries’ legal codes begin to change, it will be interesting to see whether a change in cultures’ thinking styles follows. If it does, this would further support Meyer’s argument that countries’ legal systems reflect their thinking styles.)

Empirical Thinking

Defining Empirical Thinking

Meyer presents applications-first thinking, which we’ll call empirical thinking, as the dominant reasoning method of certain cultures.

Empirical thinkers tend to use inductive reasoning when they argue. When you reason inductively, you look at the data first without formulating an initial hypothesis. You look for patterns and draw conclusions from the phenomena you see in front of you. (Shortform note: As such, inductive reasoning is also particularly prone to confirmation bias, the human tendency to find facts that support rather than deny our opinion even when both are available.)

In business, a cultural pattern of empirical thinking translates to a heavier emphasis on applying practical solutions to problems. If you give a presentation, an empirical thinker might ask questions about how actionable the strategies you recommend are. Similarly, emails written by empirical thinkers tend to be more concise. They focus on the conclusion they want their reader to draw, and they may not present how they got to that conclusion.

(Shortform note: How concise should emails be? Many business experts recommend emails of just 50-200 words. But this recommendation is based on an analysis of sales emails by an American company, so it may not be as effective if you’re emailing people from other cultures.)

When an empirical thinker presents her arguments to theoretical thinkers, she risks insulting her audience. The theoretical thinker expects to hear an overarching principle in every argument. When it’s not provided, they assume that the empirical thinker must think they’ll believe anything​​—after all, who in their right mind would buy into an argument without knowing the broader concept behind it? In this way, a theoretical thinker views the empirical thinker’s failure to provide a first principle as an insult to their intelligence. (Shortform note: Conversely, the opposite might be true. A theoretical thinker might hesitate to deliver arguments concisely because they think to do so would be offensive. If you’re an empiricist with a theoretical thinker on your team, consider telling them explicitly that being concise isn’t offensive in your culture.)

How Empirical Thinking Develops

Meyer argues that empirical thinking predominates in Anglo-Saxon countries because they were heavily influenced by the work of Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon. These philosophers popularized empirical thinking, even though inductive reasoning was invented by Aristotle, who is Greek. (Shortform note: Despite their similar names, Roger and Francis Bacon were total strangers who lived centuries apart. Roger Bacon was a medieval philosopher who pioneered the experimental science we used today. Francis Bacon lived in the 1600s and is known as the “father of the scientific method.”)

Meyer also states that Americans further popularized empirical thinking in their own culture because they disliked theoretical learning. She describes how empirical thinking is taught in American schools (and thus influences American businesspeople) through the example of language learning. American schools tend to make their students speak and use grammatical rules, even though the students don’t fully understand them yet. (Shortform note: So which is better for language teaching, inductive or deductive reasoning? Both have their benefits, such as when it comes to grammar. Inductive approaches may be better for learning grammatical structures that repeat, but inconsistent grammatical patterns benefit from more deductive approaches.)

Meyer also points out that countries that use empirical thinking tend to have common law systems. In common law systems, case law is king. A judge listens to lawyers argue both sides of a case and then comes up with a conclusion based on these facts. Furthermore, this conclusion then further affects how laws are applied in the future. Meyer argues that this is a clear example of inductive reasoning and so sees common law systems as further evidence that empirical thinking predominates in a country.

(Shortform note: Meyer argues that Anglo-Saxon countries tend to think empirically, so it makes sense that common law originated with the English monarchy. Initially, the monarchy issued all “writs'' (legal decrees), but they were often too specific to be used broadly. Consequently, later courts needed to adopt legal principles from a variety of sources, such as Roman law, to administer justice. Other courts used these published decisions to make their own rulings, so these decisions became common law.)

Strategies for Persuading in Different Cultures

Meyer suggests the following strategies for persuading people in different cultures.

#1: Alter the length of your email based on where the reader is from.

Empirical thinkers prefer shorter, concise emails. If you have trouble limiting your email to 125 words, try this test instead: if it can’t fit on your smartphone screen, shorten it. (Shortform note: This is especially important since more than 70% of people read their emails on their phones.)

Conversely, theoretical thinkers want more background information, so explain how you came to your conclusion. Try to include and address the biggest potential issue with your argument in your email. This follows the Hegelian method, which many theoretical thinkers will be familiar with.

#2: Include practical examples when presenting—but change the number based on your audience.

Case studies effectively persuade empirical thinkers, who are accustomed to using inductive reasoning to draw their own conclusions. So include several practical examples when your audience consists mostly of empirical thinkers.

While case studies are also effective for theoretical thinkers, some may resist expanding these teachings to their own lives. So spend a little more time on theory than you would with empirical thinkers. Remember that theoretical thinkers will also have theoretical questions. Prepare for them so you can answer them well and not show boredom. (Shortform note: If this involves a different type of thinking than you’re used to, practice. Can you think of theoretical questions to ask? If so, you’ll be better able to answer them.)

#3: Change the details you provide based on your audience.

Analytical thinkers are motivated by specific information. They prefer to know details and deadlines of the project they’re involved in. (Shortform note: But don’t bore them with too much information. At worst, they might check out and not listen to what you have to say.)

In contrast, dialectical thinkers care about the broader impact of their projects. Tell them how individual tasks impact other sections of the project or other members of the company. (Shortform note: You could also try appealing to their sense of duty to some broader unit, like their family or country.)

In addition to the above, Meyer states that when different kinds of thinkers work on the same team, they may not function effectively since they’re persuaded by different arguments. She presents some strategies to use in this situation. However, these strategies are not exclusive to how cultures reason and are rather general strategies for working with multicultural teams. As such, we’ve moved them to the end of this summary.

Chapter 4: Leadership Across Cultures

According to Meyer, leadership styles differ drastically across cultures. Understanding these leadership styles is critical for a number of reasons. If you’re a manager, Meyer argues that it’s your responsibility to adapt your leadership style to what your subordinates are used to. But even if you’re not, knowing how leadership works in different cultures can help ensure you give a good impression and don’t offend anyone.

In this section, we’ll first discuss how Meyer divides cultural leadership styles into two extremes: egalitarian and hierarchical, and how those leadership styles develop. We’ll then present strategies for working and leading in different kinds of cultures.

Two Styles of Leadership: Egalitarian vs Hierarchical

According to Meyer, countries tend to follow either an egalitarian or hierarchical leadership style.

The leadership style preferred in a country reflects the amount of “power distance” expected in that country. Power distance, a concept introduced by pioneering cultural theorist Geert Hofstede, measures how hierarchical a country is and how its citizens value authority.

The citizenry’s expectations of how power is distributed determine whether a country prefers an egalitarian or hierarchical leadership style.

How Hofstede Represents Power Distance

Like Meyer, Hofstede created a visual, quantifiable representation of power distance. In Hofstede’s Power Distance Index, each country has a number that indicates how high or low their power distance is. Malaysia, with an index of 104, has the world’s highest power distance. But the country with the most power distance mentioned in Meyer’s book is Nigeria, which only has an index of 77. Meyer’s tendency to focus on countries with broader business profiles like Nigeria is reasonable in a text geared towards businesspeople. (In 2011, the Goldman Sachs executive who coined BRIC deemed Nigeria one of the next major emerging markets.) Still, it may have been more effective to focus on some of the world’s outliers in some of her axes.

Defining Egalitarian Leadership

In an egalitarian culture, the power distance is low. In other words, everybody is equal​​—even in the workplace.

Companies in egalitarian cultures tend to have a flat organizational structure. People speak as easily to the CEO as they do to the lowest-ranking employee. (Shortform note: Another feature of egalitarian cultures that Meyer doesn’t mention is that its members are more likely to act on their own and ask for forgiveness instead of permission.)

In meetings, everybody’s ideas have equal value. The boss’s rank doesn’t protect his/her suggestions from criticism. Problems are pushed down to the people who know them best. (Shortform note: International management consultancy Sinickas adds that meeting participants speak informally and from the heart. In contrast, hierarchical cultures prefer scripts in meetings and presentations.)

The boss uses external cues to indicate that he/she is ‘one of the guys,’ such as by dressing casually or forgoing an office. (Shortform note: These external cues start early in some egalitarian cultures. In the Netherlands and Sweden, students call teachers by their first names.)

Most people claim they prefer to be led and to lead in an egalitarian style. But in practice, leaders who aren’t used to egalitarian followers find them disrespectful. And employees often view egalitarian managers as weak and unable to provide direction. (Shortform note: One Stanford study suggests that people prefer hierarchical leadership styles because the familiarity of hierarchical relationships makes them easier to understand. Whereas egalitarian relationships can be confusing to navigate, in a hierarchy, everyone’s roles and level of authority are clear.)

How Egalitarian Cultures Develop

Meyer hypothesizes that two major factors influenced how today’s egalitarian cultures developed.

The first factor is historical. The most egalitarian cultures in the world are concentrated in Northern Europe, which was historically dominated by the Vikings. The Vikings were very modern in their ways: Everybody got a say in major decisions, and Iceland, which they founded, is one of the world’s first democracies. Meyer argues that the ideals behind the Vikings’ political system remain evident in the egalitarian leadership styles of the cultures they once ruled.

(Shortform note: The Vikings are popularly thought to have had more gender equality than their contemporaries. Does modern-day workplace egalitarianism also equate to gender egalitarianism? Sometimes, according to the Women's Workplace Equality Index, but it’s not a perfect match. For example, Denmark and the Netherlands are both high-egalitarian cultures with high women’s workplace equality. However, Israel is high-egalitarian but lower in women’s workplace equality. Conversely, Japan and Nigeria are both hierarchical with low workplace equality, but hierarchical South Korea has very high workplace equality.)

The second factor is religion. Egalitarian cultures tend to be more Protestant. Meyer notes that Protestant countries broke away from the strict structure of the Roman Catholic Church, allowing them to develop non-hierarchical systems. Furthermore, Meyer states, Protestants value the individual’s relationship with God, and argues that these ideals are evident in the leadership styles of the cultures they dominate.

(Shortform note: Other key features of Protestantism also elevate the role of the individual, which further supports Meyer’s argument. Protestants believe that the Bible and Scripture are the highest religious authorities, while Catholics also follow the Church’s teachings. Furthermore, Protestants believe that people are saved through faith only. Catholics find salvation in practices that require a hierarchical relationship, such as confessing their sins to a priest.)

Defining Hierarchical Leadership

In a hierarchical culture, the power distance is high. In other words, your rank matters.

Companies in hierarchical cultures have clearly defined levels, and the employees stick to them. They talk to their immediate boss and subordinates but receive permission to talk with anybody further up or down the chain. (Shortform note: The expectation of giving/receiving permission sometimes results in a “kiss up/kick down” leader” who is excessively harsh to subordinates and overly submissive to his/her managers. This may be a red flag to watch for in hierarchical cultures.)

In meetings, the boss’s idea is the most important. Subordinates won’t speak unless explicitly requested to do so—and if they disagree with the boss, they keep their thoughts to themselves. Problems are pushed up to the boss so everyone can follow his or her vision and direction. (Shortform note: Meetings may also look physically different. Sinickas recommends holding different meetings for managers and non-managers, as well as having a podium for the speaker, when working in hierarchical cultures.)

The boss signals his/her authority through status symbols such as a corner office. Subordinates value these symbols; they signify that the boss deserves respect. In a hierarchical culture, if a boss deserves respect, the subordinates by extension also deserve respect. (Shortform note: Education is another highly regarded status symbol. But in some hierarchical cultures, it’s only the name that counts. China has a famously grueling university entrance exam. But once you’re accepted, it’s historically very rare to be expelled—even if you’re failing.)

Notably, especially in Asian hierarchical cultures, respect is a two-way street. It is not just the subordinate’s duty to obey. Rather, the boss is responsible for the success and well-being of his employees. He is often viewed as a paternalistic figure. (Shortform note: Viewing your boss as a parent can happen quite literally, even in non-hierarchical cultures. The attachment styles we share with our parents extend to our adult working lives, and there are even instances of work transference where we mistakenly extend our patterns with our parents to our bosses.)

How Hierarchical Cultures Develop

According to Meyer, the historical reasons that hierarchical cultures developed differ between Europe and Asia.

Firstly, the more hierarchical European cultures (Spain, Italy, and France) were all part of the Roman Empire. Ancient Rome had many class-based social and political systems. Meyer argues that these systems laid the foundation for a hierarchical system in these cultures that is evident in their modern-day leadership styles. (Shortform note: The Roman Empire lasted for 1000 years, so these class-based systems weren’t always the same. For example, near the end of the Roman Empire, non-Italian-born citizens could be invited to the Senate. But although the details of these hierarchies evolved over time, the hierarchies themselves existed quite consistently.)

Similarly, the strong influence of the Roman Catholic Church on these European countries also helped establish today’s hierarchical system. As evidence, Meyer notes that the Roman Catholic Church is extremely hierarchical, with individuals speaking to their priests and bishops instead of directly to God. (Shortform note: It’s also notable that even the highest powers in historically Catholic countries still answered to the Pope. In other words, everybody was in a hierarchy—even at the top.)

But in Asia, Meyer argues, modern-day hierarchical leadership styles reflect the philosophies of Confucius. Confucius thought that in order for societies to function smoothly, ranks and responsibilities had to be clearly delineated and strictly adhered to. According to Meyer, this Confucian influence over large swathes of Asia explains why so many Asian countries lead hierarchically in business. (Shortform note: Confucian ideals about filial piety are also used as justification for non-democratic styles of leadership—the ultimate hierarchy—especially in China. But some interpretations of Confucius’s writing argue against submission, arguing that Confucianism allows people to not only choose their leaders but also rebel against bad ones.)

Strategies for Working in Cultures With Different Leadership Styles

General Strategies for Working in Hierarchical Cultures

If you need to speak with someone several levels above or below you, always get permission from the person in between. Then, make sure to copy that person on any emails you send. This way, your email recipient understands that they can respond freely without violating local business etiquette.

(Shortform note: Pay attention to your tone in emails—especially when emailing someone of similar rank. Don’t write anything that might be interpreted as bossing them around. People in hierarchical cultures are particularly sensitive to suggestions of unearned authority.)

In hierarchical cultures, there are often subtle ways in which rank is expressed in business. For example, in Japan, the lowest-ranking person always operates the elevator buttons, while the highest-ranking person stands directly behind him/her. Learn these rules well so you don’t unintentionally offend your colleagues or clients. You should also learn the non-subtle ways too, like proper bowing etiquette in Asian cultures.

Err on the side of caution and refer to people by their last name unless they indicate otherwise. And don’t insist that people call you by your first name, since this can introduce unnecessary discomfort in your relationship. Consider a compromise like “Ms. Jane'' instead. (Shortform note: Many hierarchical countries, like South Korea and Japan, have language tenses that indicate politeness—you speak, quite literally, differently to someone based on whether they’re above or below you in rank. If you're speaking English, referring to people by their last name or having them refer to you by their last name may be one of the few immediate ways you can show respect.)

How to Lead in a Hierarchical Culture

Take your responsibility to protect seriously. Your subordinates’ faithful obedience doesn’t give you license to treat them poorly. Hierarchical leadership works best when the leader protects and mentors their subordinates well. (Shortform note: Of course, the idea that leaders need to protect their subordinates isn’t exclusive to hierarchical cultures, with one article attributing it to the American 1967 business book Organizations in Action.)

When you need your team’s input, tell them before the meeting happens. If they know in advance that you want their honest opinion, they’ll do their best to respect you by providing it. They’ll also have more latitude to consult with their colleagues. (Shortform note: You could also consider soliciting anonymous opinions. Try setting up a dummy email account or Google document where people can express their thoughts privately.)

Even if you’ve requested people’s input beforehand, call on people whose opinions you want to hear in meetings. People used to hierarchical leadership styles tend not to volunteer their input unless specifically asked. (Shortform note: But skip this strategy if you’re an external presenter. Calling on people in front of their bosses could embarrass them.)

Alternatively, consider removing yourself from the meeting entirely. Instead, have someone present the meeting’s conclusions to you later on. Your subordinates will feel more comfortable expressing their ideas honestly if you’re not present. (Shortform note: But remember that there may still be hierarchical relationships at play that affect the meeting results. Hierarchical relationships can be based not just on job title but also on factors like gender, age, or years at the company.)

General Strategies for Working in Egalitarian Cultures

Remember that speaking with someone several levels above or below you is likely totally normal—no matter how uncomfortable it makes you feel. (Shortform note: If you’re particularly intimidated by somebody, try comic visualization: Picturing them in a funny situation encourages your brain to turn its stress response off.)

Copy people on your emails on a need-to-know basis. Copying the boss unnecessarily may make an egalitarian employee feel like you’re trying to make them look bad or that you think they need extra oversight. (Shortform note: Some people worry that if they don’t copy their boss on emails, they can’t keep their boss informed. Try some other strategies, like sending your boss occasional recaps of your exchanges.)

How to Lead in an Egalitarian Culture

Learn and adopt the external cues that indicate that you’re ‘one of the guys.’ For example, call people by their first name and insist they call you by yours. Using last names may be overly formal and stiff to someone from an egalitarian culture. (According to Meyer, this is true of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Australia, but can vary regionally in the United States and the United Kingdom.) (Shortform note: This may reflect the psychological concept of social mirroring, the idea that we unconsciously copy people we like. Many texts recommend mirroring others’ gestures consciously in an attempt to get them to like you.)

Meyer also recommends several strategies that fall under the 5-step method of Management by Objective, a framework developed by management expert Peter Drucker in the 1950s. Although she mentions the term “management by objective,” Meyer doesn’t present her strategies using the step-by-step sequence Drucker did. We, however, will use the 5-step framework because it’s easier to understand.

​​Step 1: Set goals for your team.

Step 2: Share these goals with your team.

Step 3: Ask your employees to set their own goals. Approve them as long as they support the team objectives you’ve shared. Meyer recommends this specifically because people from egalitarian cultures feel more comfortable with a facilitator rather than the traditional hierarchical leader. Similarly, she recommends facilitating instead of leading meetings, too.

(Shortform note: Meyer merely recommends that these goals be “concrete and specific.” But modern-day versions of Drucker’s strategies tend to recommend specifically SMART goals. SMART is an acronym used to represent Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic, and Time-Bound goals.)

Step 4: Monitor your employee’s progress on those goals. Meyer recommends adjusting the frequency of your check-ins based on the employee’s progress—not an element of Drucker’s strategy.

Step 5: Assess your employee’s progress, and reward them as necessary. Meyer specifically recommends financial motivation like bonuses.

Chapter 5: Decision-Making Across Cultures

According to Meyer, different cultures make decisions in very different ways.

The different styles of decision-making can be a major source of conflict because each culture expects their own decision-making style to be followed, so they don’t know how to react when decisions are made in a different way. Understanding both your own and others’ decision-making is essential to business success.

In this section, we’ll discuss how Meyer divides decision-making styles into two extremes: consensual and top-down, which we’ll call consensus and individual. We’ll also note how these decision-making styles interact with a culture’s leadership style. Finally, we’ll discuss strategies to use when decision-making across cultures.

Two Styles of Decision-Making: Consensus and Individual

How Deciding by Consensus Works

In countries that decide by consensus, the group takes everyone’s opinion into account. All the relevant parties consider all the information, and they make a decision only when everybody agrees. (Shortform note: Meyer appears to suggest that consensus decisions must be unanimous. But consensus is generally defined as almost unanimous with some dissenting opinions. Acceptable dissent can be a percentage or a specific number of people. Since it varies, we recommend determining the exact definition of consensus in each relevant country.)

Since there is so much information to consider, it takes a long time to reach a decision. However, once the group reaches the decision, everyone commits to that path. This allows for rapid implementation.

But this commitment also means that it becomes very hard to change that decision.

(Shortform note: The length of the decision-making process can have real and detrimental monetary effects on one's business. Forrester suggests that by making decisions faster, a company could save $370,000 a year per 25 people.)

People who aren’t used to deciding by consensus often think they'll like this style of decision. But in practice, they tend to find it frustrating. For example, if they don’t have strong opinions about a particular decision, they want someone else to make the decision instead. (Shortform note: Still, many businesses consider implementing consensus decision-making styles because the process “often leads to innovation and creativity, legitimizes minority perspectives, and keeps hierarchy and bureaucracy in check.”)

Other criticisms of deciding by consensus include that it takes too long, that the decisions aren’t flexible or adaptable to new information, and that it prevents individuals from being held accountable.

Generally speaking, countries that decide by consensus fall on the egalitarian end of the leadership spectrum. However, there are some exceptions.

(Shortform note: Interestingly, another criticism of consensus decision-making is that it’s not actually consensual. It’s possible that the junior team members pick up on subtle cues delivered by the leader about what they want and then agree with the leader’s message, even if they wouldn’t otherwise. This probably won’t be an issue in the world’s most egalitarian cultures, but look out for if you’re in a culture near the middle of the egalitarian/hierarchical leadership spectrum.)

Exceptions to the Egalitarian/Consensus Trend

Most foreigners correctly expect the leading and decision-making styles of a country to mirror each other. So they find exceptions to these trends incredibly frustrating.

Meyer specifically describes two countries that are hierarchical but decide by consensus: Germany and Japan.

Germany’s style of decision-making is evident in how German companies are set up. Decisions in German companies aren’t made by an individual CEO. Rather, the locus of power lies in groups of managers who make the final decisions for their companies. The titles/levels of these groups vary depending on the company’s size.

Japan is another notable exception, and their ringi method of deciding is unique enough that Meyer devotes a sizable portion of her chapter to it. In Japan, a proposal is first created through the nemawashi process, during which the views of the individual stakeholders are uncovered so that they can be included in the proposal. This proposal, known as the ringisho, is then first discussed informally amongst the lowest level of relevant managers. If they all agree, they approve the proposal and pass it up to the next managerial level. In this way, the document moves up the chain. So by the time the decision reaches the highest level, it’s already been approved by every lower-ranking manager.

(Shortform note: In a Harvard Business Review article, Meyer suggests that a country’s decision-making style affects the industries it excels in. Japan and Germany are both major automotive-producing nations. Making cars involves a long process and requires a perfect end result, so it’s exactly the type of industry where deciding by consensus works. Conversely, Meyer argues, individual decision-making is best for industries that prioritize speed. This begs the question: Does a culture’s decision-making style determine the industry it dominates or is the other way around? Meyer doesn’t address this question, but it’s worth further consideration, especially in our age of rapid technological advancement. As people worldwide race to be the first to discover new technologies, it’ll be interesting to see how this race affects cultures’ decision-making styles.)

How Deciding Individually Works

In countries that decide individually, the decision-maker may consider others’ opinions, but ultimately, the individual (usually the boss) makes the decision.

These cultures tend to make decisions quickly and early in the proces. But even after it’s made, the decision remains flexible and open to change based on new information or new opinions. So implementation tends to take a long time. (Shortform note: This may also be a feature of low-context cultures. Some suggest that low-context cultures are more likely to notice how objects differ, so they’re also more likely to believe that a ‘best choice’ exists. As such, they might be more open to changing their decisions.)

Since the decision can change so easily, critics believe that those who decide individually change their minds too often, or that they haven’t really made a decision at all when they claim they have. (Shortform note: In contrast, one benefit of individual decision-making might be that it increases accountability, which one article suggests would improve your work because you’d be responsible for the consequences should your project fail.)

Consensus deciders also don’t think individual deciders fully listen to or incorporate their feedback. This frustrates consensus deciders, who may not consider individual deciders to be team players.

Generally speaking, countries that decide individually tend to fall on the hierarchical end of the leadership spectrum. However, there are some exceptions—notably, the United States.

How the Social Orientation Hypothesis Affects Individual Decision-Making

The “social orientation hypothesis,” which we discussed in our section on analytical thinking, may explain why people don’t think of individual deciders as team players. Cultures that prize independence tend to follow their own goals, while cultures that prize interdependence make decisions that benefit everybody. It’s possible that collectivist cultures in particular have trouble with individual deciders.

The "social orientation hypothesis” may also explain why cultures develop different cognition patterns. It suggests that cultures that prize independence tend to think analytically, while cultures that prize interdependence tend to think dialectically. Researchers found that when Mexican farmers became more capitalist and thus more independent, they also thought more analytically.

Exceptions to the Hierarchical/Individual Trend

Unlike other egalitarian countries, the United States employs the individual style of deciding.

Meyer posits that the American style of deciding comes from its people’s history.

In early America, the most successful people were the ones who were first—whether because they arrived early enough to get the best land, or because they were the first to accomplish something in the New World. It didn’t matter whether you made mistakes along the way because you could fix them later. What mattered was that you got it done quickly.

As such, Meyer argues, Americans grew to value speed and adaptability—and this value permeates the ideals of modern-day American business.

(Shortform note: Americans might also decide individually because they view the concept of choice as sacred. Influenced by The Wealth of Nations, Americans tied personal and religious freedoms to economic freedoms—and they were the only country in the world to do so. So Americans uniquely tie both their individual entities and their identities as Americans to the concept of freedom of choice. This may be why the United States, unlike other egalitarian countries, decides individually in business.)

Strategies for Working in Cultures With Different Decision-Making Styles

Meyer recommends several strategies for working in cultures with different decision-making styles, which we’ve detailed below.

Strategies for Cultures That Decide by Consensus

Adjust your time expectations. Cultures that decide by consensus will take much longer to reach a decision than you might be used to. Build time for more meetings and more emails into your schedule. Don’t expect a decision immediately.

Practice patience. Remember that deciding by consensus doesn’t mean the majority rules. Getting everybody on the same page when people disagree initially will likely be a frustrating and time-consuming process, but well worth it in the end.

(Shortform note: Hold your meetings someplace conducive to reaching a consensus to help you tolerate longer meetings and reduce frustration. Skip the long tables, provide refreshments, and make sure you can see and hear everybody well.)

Build relationships. Staying in the loop is crucial in cultures that decide by consensus, according to Meyer. So make a point of fostering relationships with your business partners. The earlier you’re aware of how the group feels, the more opportunity you have to change their minds if necessary. You never want to be in a situation where you’re surprised by the decision.

(Shortform note: You won’t be able to come to a decision unless all the meeting participants trust each other. So try following Meyer’s trust-building strategies from Chapter 6. If you misunderstand how close you are to someone, you might interpret the information they provide incorrectly.)

Focus on the process. Remember that a decision, once made, is the final decision. Make sure you agree with the process you’re using. Are you using the right data? Does the logic make sense? Are there external factors you’re not considering? Answering these questions may be crucial to the decision’s success. (Shortform note: We tend not to be aware of the assumptions that affect our decision-making processes, so we rarely reevaluate them. Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink may help you learn how your unconscious assumptions might be influencing your workplace decisions.)

Strategies for Cultures That Decide Individually

Check your ego. If you're not the leader, others will not consider your opinion as highly as you’re used to in the decision-making process. They might not ask for it at all. Remember that this is not a sign that your colleagues disrespect you, but merely a cultural difference. Be sure to follow all decisions, even if you disagree with them. As Meyer warns, not doing so will garner you a reputation as being difficult and insubordinate.

(Shortform note: However, In a separate article, Meyer states that if you’re in an individual and egalitarian culture, you need to present your opinion if you have one because it may not be asked for. This underscores the idea that you can’t use all of these strategies independently. In other words, don’t assume that because a culture decides individually, you can use any of the strategies in this section. In order to be an effective businessperson abroad, you need to understand how all of these spectrums interact, and choose the strategies that make the best sense in your particular business context.)

Move quickly. If you are the leader, get ready to make decisions without as much time or feedback as you’re used to. Others’ opinions are valuable, and you should listen to them. But wait too long to make a decision and your colleagues might view you as inefficient or weak. (Shortform note: In a separate article, Meyer warns that hierarchical cultures may interpret offhand comments as decisions and act on them. One potential way to avoid this is to explicitly delineate between suggestions and decisions.)

Remain flexible. Decisions can almost always be changed. Sometimes, they might be changed without your knowledge. In order to succeed, you must remain flexible and learn how to adapt quickly to new information. (Shortform note: How can you become more flexible? Try following Ray Dalio’s principle of “radical open-mindedness,” where you accept that you’re wrong and relentlessly find ways to increase the chances that you are right.)

Vote. If there is no clear leader, suggest a vote. Majority rules. (Shortform note: Countries that decide by consensus also sometimes follow the majority. But they tend to alter their decisions to appease the minority until there are as few dissenting opinions as possible. Countries that decide individually vote only once. If you lose, you lose.)

Strategies for When You Have Both Cultures on a Team

If you have members of both cultures on a team, how do you decide?

Instead of imposing your preferred decision-making process on a team, Meyer suggests coming up with one together.

Some questions to ask include: Who makes the decisions? Are dissenting opinions acceptable? Once a decision is made, is it set in stone?

Meyer also recommends reviewing these processes periodically to make sure they’re still working.

(Shortform note: Selecting a decision-making process is itself a decision, which could invite the cross-cultural clashes discussed in this chapter. But Meyer doesn’t address this contradiction. One potential workaround is to have the team leader select a decision-making process herself after considering the cultures represented on her team. In this case, the periodic check-ins become doubly important. If you go this route, it may be useful to review Meyer’s chapter on giving feedback prior to your first few check-ins.)

Chapter 6: Building Trust Across Cultures

Trust is an essential part of successful business relationships.

However, different cultures build trust in different ways. Without a clear understanding of how a particular culture builds trust, you are prone to misunderstanding the nature of your relationship with your business partners. In other words, you might think that you have a more or less significant relationship than you actually do.

In this section, we’ll first discuss the two ways in which different cultures build trust, and why those different methods develop. We’ll then discuss one of the reasons it can be so difficult to determine the depth of your relationship with someone. Finally, we will present several strategies you can use to build trust in different cultures.

Two Styles of Trust: Cognitive and Personal

Meyer separates how cultures build trust into two types: task-based, which we’ll call cognitive, and relationship-based, which we’ll call personal.

(Shortform note: Be careful not to confuse these with task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership styles. Task-oriented leadership focuses on helping people get the task done, while relationship-oriented leadership values the relationships on the team. While similar to the two types of trust, these are specific to leadership styles, whereas cognitive and personal trust are useful in every business relationship, even when there isn’t a specific leader.)

How Cognitive Cultures Build Trust

Business relationships in cognitive cultures are rooted in cognitive trust. Meyer describes cognitive trust as trust that develops based on behaviors. Is the other party good at their job? Do they follow through?

However, this also means that cognitive cultures strictly delineate their personal and professional relationships. According to Meyer, many members of cognitive cultures will actively avoid developing a personal relationship with people they work with in order to avoid conflicts of interest.

(Shortform note: For example, people in cognitive cultures might consider hiring a relative or somebody who you were introduced to through a relative to be a conflict of interest. But in other cultures, this might be the only way you got the interview in the first place.)

Meyer contends that a key element of cognitive cultures is what happens after the professional relationship is severed. People from cognitive cultures still work to establish rapport with their colleagues and clients through icebreakers and socializing. But if somebody at your company is fired in a cognitive culture, this tends to signify the unceremonious end of your relationship. (Shortform note: This is usually due to people feeling awkward, but can be a more official ending. One American woman found herself struggling to remain friends with a former coworker because their ex-boss had asked them to cut contact. This is an extreme and awkward case in cognitive culture, but would be absolutely unthinkable in certain places around the world.)

People view members of cognitive cultures as superficial and inauthentic because knowing someone for years doesn’t actually mean you know them at all.

Countries where cognitive trust is the norm tend to have established legal systems and include the United States and the United Kingdom. Meyer argues that this is no coincidence: if you have reliable legal recourse when your business partner wrongs you, her personal character becomes less important. You assume that she’s reliable because she’s good at her job—otherwise, you wouldn’t be doing business with her. And on the off chance she isn’t, you can always sue. In this context, investing time in getting to know each other on a deep personal level becomes at best inefficient and at worst a waste of time.

(Shortform note: Although people from cognitive cultures might be more inclined to pursue legal recourse than other cultures, it’s often considered an unwise decision. For example, many people hesitate to sue their employers because they're worried that if a new potential employer finds out about the lawsuit, they’ll never get hired again.)

How Personal Cultures Build Trust

Business relationships in personal cultures are rooted in affective or personal trust. Meyer describes affective trust as trust that develops based on how you feel about the other person. Affective trust is the trust that people of all cultures feel towards their family and friends. But in personal cultures, it's also the cornerstone of business relationships.

In personal cultures, people build trust slowly. They don’t use icebreaker exercises, which develop only superficial trust. Instead, this type of culture values deeper, long-lasting trust.

Meyer contends that professional relationships in personal cultures don’t end the way that they do in cognitive cultures. Rather, professional relationships extend through years and through different companies.

(Shortform note: Researchers suggest that trust has three parts: competency, honesty (or integrity), and benevolence, the idea that someone is acting in your best interests. It’s likely that although both types of cultures value honesty, cognitive cultures place a higher value on competence and personal cultures place a higher value on benevolence. After all, in many cognitive cultures, the idea that a business is doing its best for you would be considered a joke. So if you're working in a personal culture, focus on increasing your benevolence.)

If you fire Ivana in a personal culture, her ex-colleagues will likely hold a send-off party for her. They’ll certainly maintain a professional relationship with her, and might even follow her to her next company. The same may hold true for Ivana’s clients because they value her more than the company she works for.

(Shortform note: Another reason to focus on the quality of your business relationships when working cross-culturally is because firing practices differ across cultures. The United States famously hires employees at-will, so they can be fired for nearly any non-discriminatory reasons. But most countries have strict rules about whether someone can be fired at all—so you might be stuck with people you dislike for a long time.)

Critics of personal cultures think that it’s inefficient to spend so much time building these relationships. However, the emerging markets that tend to value personal trust do so for a very specific reason, according to Meyer. Emerging markets tend to have less reliable legal systems, so you don't always have official recourse if somebody wrongs you. Therefore, to avoid being wronged, you need to get to know the true characters of the people you work with. Once you’ve invested time into building personal relationships, you’ll be more confident taking business risks with them (and because they know you personally, they’ll be less likely to be wrong).

(Shortform note: Investing time in your personal relationships at work has several benefits, especially if you have a “best friend.” Gallup research found that people with best friends at work reported seven times more engagement at their jobs. They were also healthier and did better work than their lonelier peers.)

Countries where personal trust is the norm include the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).

Why It’s Hard to Define Your Relationship: Peach vs Coconut Cultures

One reason that establishing effective cross-cultural business relationships is so difficult is because different cultures indicate the depth of their relationship in different ways. These cues aren’t necessarily related to where the culture lies on the trust-building spectrum.

Meyer cites a common model for dividing cultures into two types: peach cultures and coconut cultures.

(Shortform note: The peach/coconut model appears to have been influenced by the “specific v. diffuse” dimension of Trompenaars’s model of national cultural differences. This dimension describes how readily people share their private lives. But the model is a cultural communication framework that describes several other dimensions of cultural difference, including how people deal with each other, how they view their environment, and how they perceive time.)

Peaches are soft on the outside but have a hard pit. Similarly, citizens of peach cultures are outwardly friendly. However, they can be incredibly hard to get to know because they protect their true selves in a “hard pit” reserved for a select few. Other cultures may feel cheated by peaches, because they’ve shared so much of themselves and think they’re developing a close relationship when the peach doesn't think it’s close at all. Peach cultures include the United States (a cognitive culture) and Brazil (a personal culture).

A coconut has a hard shell. But crack it, and you'll be rewarded with its soft inner meat. Similarly, people from coconut cultures seem initially distant, especially to foreigners. It takes time to get to know them. But once you crack the shell, you can develop a long-lasting, deep relationship with them. Coconut cultures include Russia (a personal culture) and Germany (a cognitive culture).

(Shortform note: In a separate article, Meyer describes how peach and coconut cultures have different social norms. For example, asking how you met your husband is acceptable in peach cultures but unacceptable in coconut cultures. She recommends that coconuts learn how peach culture works in order to avoid feeling cheated. In contrast, peaches should feel free to act normally when sharing themselves but refrain from asking any potentially intrusive questions.)

Strategies for Building Trust in Different Cultures

In this section, we will share Meyer’s strategies for building trust in both cognitive and personal cultures.

However, most of Meyer’s strategies focus on building trust in personal cultures. Meyer has two reasons for this.

First, since today’s emerging markets (BRIC) tend to have personal cultures, Meyer thinks that learning how to build affective trust is more important for modern-day business professionals.

(Shortform note: South Africa was added to BRICS in 2010, four years prior to The Culture Map’s publication, but Meyer doesn’t mention it in her axis or her acronym. This is a pattern throughout her book: Meyer rarely describes African cultures in The Culture Map. But South Africa is also likely a personal country, as South Africans are unlikely to meet you unless you have some personal connection to them.)

Secondly, Meyer thinks that affective trust-building is a generally useful skill when working with different cultures. When you have a personal bond with someone, they are more likely to forgive and teach you about the inevitable cultural errors you make.

(Shortform note: Affective trust is also beneficial in cognitive cultures. One study whose participants were all located in the United States suggests that “in the client-project manager relationship, affective-based trust factors can supersede cognitive-based trust factors in a client’s perception of ‘good quality’ project performance.”)

How to Build Trust in Cognitive Cultures

Choose the most efficient way to communicate. Cognitive cultures tend to value efficiency over connection. So try sending an email instead of calling. If you do call, don’t be afraid to talk about your personal life—but keep it shorter than you might be used to.

(Shortform note: Even in cognitive cultures, people struggle to decide when to email and when to call. Try choosing your communication method based on how quickly you need an answer.)

Shorten your meals. Sharing a meal is a great way to bond with others. But inform your partners if the meal will last longer than 90 minutes, and try to keep it to 60. (Shortform note: Restaurants in countries where long meals are rare may kick you out after a set period. If you’ll exceed these times, consult the restaurant in advance.)

Let people go home. The fact that your colleagues don’t want to join you on a night out is normal behavior and generally not indicative of how much they respect you. If they visit you but want to return to their hotel after meetings, don’t take it personally. (Shortform note: Staying out all night with your coworkers may be good business in your culture, but other cultures may view this as unprofessional behavior. Learn and follow the norms of the country you're working in.)

How to Build Trust in Personal Cultures

Visit. It will likely come as no surprise that it's easiest to build trust with someone in person. If you are able, visit the people you’ll be working with. Leave room on the agenda for socializing. And when you arrive, follow the other strategies on this list to ensure it's the most effective visit possible. Moreover, when people from different cultures come to meet you, entertain them no matter how busy you may be. Establishing a relationship now will help you avoid problems in the long run.

(Shortform note: In her book, Meyer describes how one American manager was confused why her European colleagues set up one-on-ones to meet with her when they were in town, even when they didn’t have anything to talk about. If you find such one-on-ones uncomfortable, flip the script and invite your colleagues to lunch or to drinks instead. You may feel more comfortable establishing the type of bond they desire in a more relaxed setting.)

Look for connections. The best way to build affective trust is to find similarities between you and your business partner. If none jump out at you, pay more attention. What do they have in their office? What can you find on social media? You might need to use loose connections or do some research on your own. For example, if they love movies, watch the most popular movies in their country right now and ask for their opinion.

(Shortform note: How can you build affective trust remotely? One management consultant’s strategies for your own team members include having a virtual space where people can hang out, such as a non-work Slack channel, or creating a buddy system to help onboard new virtual employees.)

Let your hair down. When someone from a personal culture invites you out, this is your cue to reveal your true self. They have turned their professional selves off; it is time for you to do the same. Don't worry about being politically incorrect, saying the wrong thing, or getting too personal. Skip the business, and just have fun.

(Shortform note: Think you can’t be yourself because you don’t know these people yet? Think again. Dare to Lead argues that trust doesn’t come after vulnerability; rather, they occur simultaneously. Specifically, when someone reaches out to you and you choose to engage with and respond to their vulnerability (instead of ignoring it), you earn their trust and the right to be vulnerable with them in turn. So go ahead and be vulnerable!.)

Drink. In many cultures, drinking alcohol together is essential to forming business relationships. This is especially true of East Asian cultures, where frank communication is discouraged in the boardroom. By drinking alcohol and letting yourself go after business hours, you show that you have nothing to hide and are therefore trustworthy. But never discuss your drunken antics elsewhere. What happens at the bar stays at the bar.

(Shortform note: Meyer describes in detail the role alcohol plays in Japanese business culture. But there are indications this role is changing as new bars in Tokyo serve exclusively non-alcoholic drinks. If you don’t drink but need to build relationships in a culture that values alcohol, research similar establishments there.)

Spend time on meals. Meals shared with people from personal cultures can stretch to several hours. Remember that these are essential to building trust, so resist the urge to classify them a waste of time. Meyer recommends using this opportunity to get to know your colleagues personally. And if you happen to be hosting someone from a personal culture, spend more time planning and sharing the meal than you might otherwise.

(Shortform note: To reduce the chances of accidentally offending your business partners, brush up on the culture’s table manners. And remember that the length of the meal doesn’t always reflect how much food is provided. If you’re used to scarfing down lunch at your desk, pace yourself. Otherwise, you might find yourself waiting with an empty plate for hours while your colleagues savor their food.)

Use the phone. Emails might be efficient, but they’re not good at deepening personal relationships. Meyer suggests calling people from personal cultures, especially if you’re still in the process of establishing your personal relationship. If you’re speaking with someone new or someone you haven’t spoken to in a long time, you may need to have several phone conversations before bringing up the business matter at all.

(Shortform note: Meyer's book doesn't mention video chatting, but it might be your best option. One study of young women found that after meeting in-person, video chat was the format in which they felt most bonded to their friends. You may argue that a study between friends is not applicable to business relationships, but this is precisely the type of trust that is needed in personal cultures. That said, another study showed that having Zoom meetings is less efficient than simply getting on a phone call, so consider the purpose when choosing your communication method.)

Follow the other person’s cues. When you do call your business partner, don't merely exchange pleasantries for five minutes before getting to the point of the conversation. While this may feel natural to you, you may offend your foreign colleague. Avoid such misunderstandings by letting your business partner direct the conversation. Meyer also recommends using a similar strategy in your emails by imitating the structure of the emails you receive. For example, if they always write a long paragraph asking about your health, add one to the emails you send too.

(Shortform note: This likely works due to social mirroring, the idea that people who like each other copy each other. (We discussed this previously in our leadership chapter.) Just be subtle when you mirror someone. If they notice you’re doing it, they might feel manipulated.)

Utilize your network. According to Meyer, cold calling and emailing tend to be ineffective strategies in personal cultures. If you need to speak to someone you don't know from a personal culture, go through your network. You are far more likely to receive a response if you can find a mutual connection to introduce you. This strategy is especially effective in Arab cultures.

(Shortform note: If you have no connections in common, use your knowledge of different cultures to your advantage. For example, you might find through Linkedin that your desired contact has a colleague from a cognitive culture. You may have better luck cold calling or emailing them and asking for an introduction once you’ve established a rapport, instead of going to your desired contact directly.)

Exercise: Improve Your Business Relationships

You now know how people trust differently in different cultures. Use this knowledge to improve your own business practices.

• Think about a specific intercultural business relationship that’s important to you. How does this person’s culture build trust? How does your culture build trust?

• Describe a strategy you’ve used to build trust with this person.

• Reflect on why it might have been effective or ineffective. Was it a cognitive or personal behavior?

• Name another strategy you’d like to use to improve your relationship with this person. Why do you think it will work?

Chapter 7: Disagreement Across Cultures

Disagreement is a necessary reality in the business world.

But the rules for appropriate disagreement vary across cultures. If you get these rules wrong, you risk seriously damaging your relationship with your business partners. As such, understanding how different cultures disagree is essential.

In this chapter, we’ll first discuss how Meyer divides disagreement styles into two extremes: “confrontational,” which we’ll call open disagreement, and “avoids confrontation,” which we’ll call disagreement-avoidant. We’ll then discuss why it can be so hard to determine where a culture falls on the disagreement spectrum. Finally, we’ll present strategies you can use to ensure that disagreements don’t harm your business relationships.

Two Styles of Disagreement: Open Disagreement vs Disagreement-Avoidant

Open Disagreement

Defining Open Disagreement

According to Meyer, cultures that disagree openly view disagreement as good for the group. A free exchange of ideas allows for greater innovations, and disagreements are a necessary part of that process. `

So in these cultures, people disagree with you frankly and publicly. It’s not unusual for a strong debate to break out in a meeting.

These open disagreements aren’t viewed as personal attacks—indeed, they have little impact on your personal relationship at all. That’s because in these cultures, the person is independent of the idea. Just because you disagree with somebody vehemently doesn’t mean you disapprove of them overall.

Western and Northern European countries tend to disagree openly.

(Shortform note: In her chapter on trust, Meyer discusses how cultures that value cognitive trust do so partly because they have reliable legal systems they can turn to if something goes wrong. This reasoning may have implications on disagreement styles as well. If damaging your personal relationship doesn’t strongly affect your business dealings anyway, more open disagreement would likely be acceptable. In support of this, many cultures that disagree openly also develop trust cognitively. But not all: For example, the French are very confrontational but lie squarely in the middle of the trusting spectrum.)

How Cultures That Disagree Openly Develop

Meyer suggests that just as the Hegelian method used in the French educational system influenced how they persuade people in business settings, it also influenced how they disagree. In other words, the French disagree openly in business settings because that’s what they were taught to do in school.

(Shortform note: Meyer doesn’t explicitly cite the Hegelian influence on education as a factor in why countries other than France also disagree openly. However, many other countries that practice theoretical thinking (Germany, Italy, and Spain, for example) also disagree confrontationally. This suggests that these countries also disagree openly due to Hegel’s influence on their educational systems. This point is supported by the fact that the Anglo-Saxon countries which practice empirical thinking all lie in the middle of the disagreement spectrum.)

Disagreement-Avoidant Cultures

Defining Disagreement-Avoidant Cultures

In some cultures, openly disagreeing with someone will harm your relationship—sometimes seriously and potentially to the point of irreparability.

In these cultures, Meyer states, disagreement is considered to be bad for the group.

Furthermore, in these cultures, disagreeing with someone implies that you disapprove of them as a person. In many disagreement-avoidant cultures, your image is extremely important. If that image is disrupted in any way, it’s considered very embarrassing. To disagree publicly with someone in these cultures is to suggest that this person is trying to project a false image of themselves to the world. As such, openly disagreeing with someone amounts to a personal attack.

(Shortform note: People of all cultures value their image, but how an image disruption affects you personally varies based on what culture you’re in, according to Meyer. Meyer neglects to attribute this idea to Stella Ting-Toomey, who developed face-negotiation theory in 1985. Ting-Toomey was the first to propose that all cultures care about their ‘face,’ or image, but use different behaviors to protect or attack it.)

This doesn’t not mean that disagreement never occurs in these cultures. But if people express disagreement, they do so subtly and privately.

Asian countries tend to be disagreement-avoidant.

How Increasing Cultural Sensitivity Might Affect Your Disagreement Style

Of course, Meyer is not the first to discuss how disagreement affects workplaces. You may have heard of the five styles of conflict management: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising. Each style is characterized by how much concern you have for yourself versus others. For example, avoiding means you have low concern for both yourself and others, while obliging means you’re less concerned with your own needs and more concerned with others’.

Interestingly, one study “found a positive relationship between intercultural sensitivity and obliging strategy.” The study suggests this is due to an external factor: Interculturally sensitive people are more aware that they’re fallible and might not be right, or that the other person cares more. So they’re more likely to concede an issue with the hope that they’ll be treated with the same sensitivity in the future. Alternatively, they might try obliging only if they think their needs aren’t as important as the relationship.

How Disagreement-Avoidant Cultures Develop

Meyer sees Confucius’s ideals about group harmony as a major influence on disagreement-avoidant Asian countries.

In Confucianism, there are five fundamental relationships that form the foundation of societal order. Each relationship comes with guidelines about how you need to behave towards each other, and not behaving the way you’re supposed to leads to the breakdown of society. So to disagree openly with someone is to suggest they’re not being true to their prescribed role—and this carries a far greater taboo in Asian cultures due to the Confucian influence.

How Latin American and Middle Eastern Cultures Become Disagreement-Avoidant

Meyer spends a lot of time discussing how and why Asian cultures become disagreement-avoidant. But she only says that people from Latin American cultures and Middle Eastern cultures are “sensitive and easily bruised.” Her total lack of explanation for this statement enforces cultural stereotypes, which seemingly runs counter to her expertise as a cultural consultant. This pattern occurs often throughout the book: Meyer focuses on East Asian and Western cultures and neglects Latin American, Middle Eastern, and African cultures.

So why might Latin American and Middle Eastern cultures be disagreement-avoidant?

Middle Eastern cultures may have become disagreement-avoidant due to the importance of honor, or sharaf, in the Arab world. Bedouin tribal culture, which preceded much of the modern-day Middle East, valued face and honor so much that they created laws based on these concepts. Arabs also lose face when scolded in public, which may explain their disagreement-avoidant cultures. Interestingly, this loss of face works both ways: The person doing the scolding may also lose face due to his/her disrespectful conduct.

Similarly, Latin America is also historically an honor-shame culture where questioning a man’s masculinity resulted in shame and often a reprisal of some kind. So it stands to reason that undermining someone publicly in business, which is a traditionally male field, would be traditionally avoided as to prevent both shame and potentially violence.

Factors That Complicate Determining How a Culture Disagrees: Disagreement vs Emotional Displays

Defining the Relationship Between Disagreement and Emotional Displays

You might assume that cultures that disagree openly are equally open with their emotions, and disagreement-avoidant cultures are emotionally reserved. This tends to be the case, according to Meyer, but it’s not a hard-and-fast rule. This is because cultures are governed by what psychologists refer to as “cultural display rules.” These are norms within a culture that dictate how it’s appropriate to express your emotions.

In other words, all of us express emotions in our faces and mannerisms—but how often and how intensely is dictated by culture.

Meyer states that the key to evaluating where a culture lies on the disagreement spectrum is to ask yourself: How much would openly disagreeing with someone harm your relationship? Ignore how emotionally open they are.

Meyer uses a quadrant to visually express the relationships between how cultures disagree and how they display their emotions. However, we found this unnecessarily confusing. So instead, we’ll simply discuss the three main reasons Meyer posits for why a culture’s level of comfort with disagreement is not always related to how comfortable they are with emotional displays.

Reason #1: Debates are intellectual, not emotional.

Some cultures, like Germany and the Netherlands, are very reserved but very comfortable with open confrontation.

According to Meyer, this is because these cultures don’t view disagreement as an emotional expression. Rather, debates and disagreement are purely intellectual exercises.

People from these cultures view robust disagreement as a necessary tool that allows them to deepen their understanding of the topic at hand. It’s not considered emotional.

(Shortform note: If you get emotional during debates, arguing with someone who is seemingly emotionally unaffected during the debate may be frustrating. Try referring to yourself in the third person. This self-distancing allows you to regulate your emotions so that you can keep your cool.)

Reason #2: Some culture’s emotional displays are widely misinterpreted.

All cultures have different rules governing acceptable emotional displays. So sometimes, these rules clash.

Meyer specifically notes that many Latin American and Arabic cultures speak at high volumes and make many physical gestures in everyday interactions. So if you come from a culture that prefers lower volumes and is less physically expressive, you may see fighting when there is none and conclude that these cultures disagree openly.

But these cultures are actually disagreement-avoidant. It’s just that they display emotions differently than you do. (Shortform note: In fact, the loud, high voices that connote anger in many Western cultures are a sign of sincerity in Arab cultures. Knowing and imitating the cultural display rules of the culture you’re working in are especially essential when they differ dramatically from yours. Keep in mind that your own actions will be interpreted differently, too. According to Richard Lewis’s When Cultures Collide, cultural display rules affected the first Gulf War: Saddam Hussein didn’t take George H. W. Bush’s threats seriously because he spoke too quietly.)

​​Reason #3: Some cultures express disagreement differently based on the relationship.

According to Meyer, China and Korea disagree with you differently based on how close you are.

Meyer uses the terms in-group and out-group, both derived from social psychology, to define these relationships. An in-group is a group you identify as belonging to and whose members accept you. An out-group is a group you don’t belong to.

If you’re in the in-group in these cultures, the Confucian rules for relationships apply, so people avoid disagreeing with you.

But if you’re in the out-group, according to Meyer, there are almost no Confucian rules governing your relationship. As such, open disagreement is not considered a threat to societal order and is justified.

Meyer suggests that the Chinese will have especially open and sometimes hostile confrontations with the outgroup, which she attributes to a competitive environment fostered by the country’s large population. Meyer doesn’t make the link between these explicit, but it’s arguable that where there’s more competition, there’s more pressure to succeed. In this situation, you’re likely far pickier about who you conduct business with, so it makes sense that you’d disagree more with strangers. It might also explain why the Chinese value personal trust highly, if they interact so differently with strangers than they do with people they know.

(Shortform note: The ingroup/outgroup bias may be particularly strong in these cultures due to their racial homogeneity: South Koreans are 99% ethnically Korean, while 91.11% of China is Han Chinese. The “familiar face overgeneralization hypothesis” suggests that we have an “own-race positivity bias” partly because we naturally react better to people we’re familiar with. So it’s possible that these countries’ lack of other races increase their distrust of the outgroup.)

​​Strategies for Disagreeing Productively Across Cultures

General Strategies for Disagreeing Productively

Discover and define the meeting’s purpose.

According to Meyer, different cultures have three different overarching ideas about what the general purpose of meetings is. Understanding these distinctions will help you decide what level of disagreement is appropriate.

In some cultures, you have a meeting to formalize a decision that has already been made informally. Many Asian cultures follow this strategy.

In these cultures, disagreeing at the meeting is too late. Express your disagreement privately well before the meeting takes place, during the actual informal decision-making process. You may recognize this strategy—it’s the same one Meyer recommends for working with cultures that decide by consensus.

In some cultures, you have a meeting in order to make a decision. Some debate may occur, but you end the meeting with an answer.

And in some cultures, you have a meeting to learn about what you’re deciding on. You can expect a lively debate at these meetings. In these cultures, following the strategies to use in cultures that disagree openly will likely have the most impact.

If you are leading a global team, Meyer recommends explicitly defining the team members’ expectations of meetings—whether by asking them their opinions or stating what yours are—so that everybody is on the same page as to the appropriate level of disagreement.

Do Meetings Really Have Three Purposes?

Meyer often makes broad generalizations with limited support, like this idea that there are three overarching meeting purposes amongst cultures. When Cultures Collide also suggests that different cultures tend to have meetings for generally different purposes. But Meyer doesn’t offer any outside evidence. She explains that she developed these purposes based on surveys from people who attended her management courses. But she doesn’t provide any publication records for this survey data, and she only names a few specific cultures’ responses in this chapter. If Meyer had gone one step further with this idea—even by just publishing her survey data—she could have better refuted criticisms that she’s overly general and enforcing cultural stereotypes.

Explain your actions. Meyer suggests that explaining why you act how you do could mitigate any unintentional harm you might cause. She also states that there are creative techniques one can use to frame your behavior. For example, Meyer’s French husband uses the phrase “let me play devil’s advocate” in meetings with Americans before expressing his disagreement. This simple phrase apparently makes Americans more receptive to his ideas.

(Shortform note: This phrase likely works because “let me play devil’s advocate” technically means that the person is pretending to disagree in order to help others evaluate their ideas more strictly. Introducing disagreement as a thought experiment probably allows people to take the discussion less personally and speak more rationally.)

(Shortform note: Explaining your actions is a questionable strategy. It’s one thing to explain how you work so that you can explain why you’re struggling and ask for help, as Meyer suggests in her chapter on communication. But if you’re working in another culture ~ and especially if you’re living there—many would argue that it’s your responsibility to adapt since you’re the visitor. Try splitting the difference: Explain how you disagree to help mitigate potential harm, but actively work on expressing disagreement in ways that don’t come naturally to you.)

Strategies to Use in Disagreement-Avoidant Countries

Many of the strategies Meyer suggests in this section are extremely similar to ones she recommended previously. As such, we’ll mention these strategies only briefly here before delving more deeply into the new strategies she recommends.

Strategies Meyer Mentions Previously

Consider not attending the meeting if you’re the boss. In some countries, people are comfortable expressing their ideas openly amongst their peers but not amongst higher-status individuals.

Tell people what you’re going to ask them in advance so they can prepare their opinions. Emphasize that you want to hear their original thoughts.

Use techniques that help separate the idea from its original creator. Meyer specifically recommends brainstorming: When many people ideate simultaneously in a limited amount of time, it’s hard to remember who thought of what. Submitting each written idea anonymously can also further separate the idea from its creator.

Adjust your language. Use weakeners (words that mitigate your message, like “slightly” or “maybe”), and avoid strengtheners (s that emphasize your message, like “absolutely.”)

(Shortform note: You may notice that nearly all of these strategies were suggested for working with hierarchical cultures. Meyer doesn’t explicitly state that leadership styles and disagreement styles are correlated, but a visual comparison of her two scales suggests that they are: Hierarchical countries tend to also be more disagreement-avoidant, while more egalitarian countries tend to disagree more openly. Germany is the only exception. It lies squarely in the middle of the leadership spectrum but is extremely open to disagreement.)

New Strategies

If you’re working in China or Korea, you may never join the in-group as a foreigner. But you can get close by building up your relationship. Follow the strategies recommended for building personal trust in Chapter 6.

If you’re the boss, state your opinion last. If your subordinate doesn’t know what your opinion is, they don’t know that they’re disagreeing with you, so they might feel more comfortable expressing their opinions honestly. However, keep in mind that your subordinates will be looking for subtle cues to try and guess your opinion. (Shortform note: You can keep your face neutral by following strategies like using a mantra.)

Strategies to Use in Countries That Disagree Openly

Don’t try to disagree more forcefully than you’re used to. Every culture has subtle rules of etiquette that govern what’s considered appropriate disagreement and what’s not, and you’re likely unaware of them. Emulating a disagreement style you’re not used to can backfire and make you sound overly aggressive or offensive. (Shortform note: You may recognize this strategy: Meyer uses the same reasoning to explain why you shouldn’t provide more direct feedback than you’re used to.)

Remind yourself that it’s not personal. Just because something is aggressive in your culture doesn’t mean it’s aggressive everywhere. Reminding yourself of this throughout your disagreement can help temper your reactions, so that you can converse calmly with a colleague instead of reacting angrily to them. (Shortform note: “Don’t take things personally” is easier said than done. Try visualization techniques—and know your triggers so you can prepare yourself emotionally.)

Chapter 8: Time Perception Across Cultures

At first glance, scheduling might not seem like it would invite cross-cultural conflict. After all, we all experience time—whether we want to or not.

But time isn’t a fixed item. Time is a concept, and each culture thinks about it differently.

Understanding how other cultures perceive time is crucial for maintaining beneficial business relationships. Otherwise, you might be furious that you’ve been kept waiting—then become even angrier when your partner arrives and not only doesn’t apologize but is also confused as to why you’re so upset.

Meyer divides the methods of perceiving time into two overarching types: linear-time and flexible-time. But we’ll use the terms coined by Hall, who invented these concepts: monochronic, or M-Time, and polychronic, or P-Time.

In this section, we’ll first discuss these two methods of time perception, which Meyer calls scheduling, and how they develop across cultures. Then, we’ll present strategies you can use when working with people who perceive time differently than you do.

Two Styles of Time Perception: Monochronic vs Polychronic

Monochronic Cultures

Defining Monochronic Cultures

In monochronic cultures, time is a method of organizing life. As such, monochronic cultures value a fixed, linear schedule. Time is a consumable commodity, which is why expressions such as “wasting time” or “saving time” exist.

These cultures focus on one thing at a time. This is true in business as well as in daily life.

Monochronic cultures also value punctuality, so lateness is looked down upon. Of course, lateness is a relative concept. Some cultures think arriving two minutes after the scheduled start time is late. Others think five minutes is unacceptable. But the key point in monochronic cultures is that there’s a fixed amount of time after which arriving or beginning is unacceptable.

(Shortform note: In many cultures, including monochronic cultures, starting work on time is much more important than ending work on time. In fact, in some cultures, it's still acceptable for employers to email their employees in the middle of the night (and expect a response). However, this may be changing. In recent years, France and Germany both made international headlines for considering laws that would prohibit employers from sending emails during non-business hours.)

One of the best ways to evaluate whether a culture is monochronic is to look at how it approaches meetings. In monochronic cultures, meetings have a fixed start and end time. Meyer states that usually, a detailed agenda is sent out to participants ahead of time. Each topic may be allotted a particular number of minutes on this schedule.

If participants begin to discuss a topic not on the meeting agenda, it’s considered to be going off-track. Someone will point out that this topic is not on the agenda and suggest that it be discussed at a later time—perhaps at another meeting exclusively for this topic.

Furthermore, participants are expected to remain engaged throughout the meeting. Cell phones are silenced. People use the bathroom during designated breaks. Having a side conversation is considered wildly unprofessional.

(Shortform note: These meetings aren’t necessarily effective. In fact, many monochronic American business leaders have made headlines for recommending as few meetings as possible. If you must have meetings, Patrick Lencioni’s Death by Meeting recommends several strategies for making them less tedious. For example, he recommends having four different types of meetings, each with varying lengths and varying methods of setting agendas. This framework improves each meeting’s structure and helps keep everyone more engaged.)

Monochronic cultures also tend to run on clock time, a concept first defined by sociologist Robert Levine. In these cultures, you have lunch at noon, not when you’re naturally hungry. (Shortform note: Because monochronic cultures focus on only one thing at a time, you might think they're more productive than other cultures. However, as we'll see, organizing your life around "clock time" doesn't necessarily mean you're productive.)

How Monochronic Cultures Develop

Meyer suggests that one factor that contributes to the development of monochronic cultures is industrialization. During the Industrial Revolution, people were newly required to arrive at an exact time to a specific location. This is because they started working in factories, and the machines were turned on at specific times. If you were late, you cost the company money.

Meyer argues that Germany is a perfect example of the Industrial Revolution’s effects, since Germany was one of the most monochronic cultures in the world and also was one of the first places to become heavily industrialized.

(Shortform note: Meyer associates the Industrial Revolution with Germany, but most people associate it with England, where it began. Hall, who both originated the concept of monochronic time and first linked to industrialization, is no exception. In Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans, he and co-author Mildred Reed Hall argued that monochronic cultures began in England when the Industrial Revolution required factory workers to arrive at a specific place at a specific time.)

Meyer also notes a correlation between countries with predictable systems and monochronic cultures, although she stops short of arguing that countries with predictable systems are necessarily industrialized. In many countries, holidays are pre-scheduled and built into the calendar. The government runs reliably. Natural disasters are unlikely to drastically inhibit your ability to go about your daily business.

If everything around you runs on time, but you’re always late, you become a financial liability. So, Meyer suggests, the more predictable a culture is, the more likely it is also monochronic.

(Shortform note: This predictability can cause problems when unforeseen circumstances do occur. In 2021, many Japanese holidays were rescheduled for the rescheduled 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics. However, pre-printed calendars mostly reflected the original 2021 holiday dates, resulting in confusion, loss of profit, and loss of productivity as people took off work when they weren’t supposed to.)

Polychronic Cultures

Defining Polychronic Cultures

Polychronic cultures have a flexible approach to time.

Schedules may exist, but only 48 hours in advance. Even then, these schedules may only be loosely adhered to. (Shortform note: Meyer sometimes makes broad, unsupported generalizations like this one. She offers no evidence for this 48-hour window, and our external research didn’t support her claim.)

Polychronic cultures work on several things at once, both in business and in daily life. So one of the best ways to evaluate whether a culture is polychronic is to look at how it approaches meetings. In polychronic cultures, meetings usually have a start time and a general topic. But according to Meyer, that is the extent of its time structure. Topics are adaptable to the business’s current situation. They are discussed according to priority level even if they weren’t on the original agenda.

Sometimes, tangents crop up that do not require everybody at the meeting to be involved. When this occurs, only the relevant individuals will discuss that tangent. So several conversations may be happening simultaneously.

Participants aren’t expected to focus on the meeting at the expense of all other priorities. If someone receives an urgent phone call, they take it.

The Myth of Multitasking: Are Polychronic Cultures Less Productive?

Productivity books like Brian Tracy’s Eat That Frog argue that multitasking is a myth: Humans can’t focus on two things at once. Rather, so-called “good multitaskers” are great at switching their attention quickly between tasks.

Tracy argues that this “task shifting” is detrimental to our productivity, stating that it can increase the time it takes to complete a task by five times. Similarly, a UC Irvine study found that it took 23 minutes to refocus on a single task if you get off track.

So does this imply that polychronic cultures are less productive than monochronic ones? Perhaps at first glance, but the reality is more complicated.

Firstly, most psychological studies are conducted in American university labs. The United States is a monochronic culture. Since it’s unlikely the researchers are accounting for cultural differences regarding time perception, American findings may not be as relevant to people from polychronic cultures.

Secondly, all interruptions have the same “disruption cost,” but the UC Irvine study found that “people who are interrupted with something related to the task they’re working on perceive the interruption as beneficial because it helps them think about their current task.” So completing a task may take longer, but that doesn’t always equate to less productivity.

Polychronic cultures run on what Levine termed event time. Instead of judging time by the clock, events occur when the participants want them to and end when they feel that the time is right. For example, a bus will leave when it’s full.

A Third Way of Perceiving Time: Cyclical Time

Another cultural method used to measure time is “cyclical time,” as described in When Cultures Collide. Lewis explains that many Eastern cultures view time as repetitive, which is why these cultures tend to take more time when making decisions. In these cultures, decisions aren’t viewed as one-time opportunities you need to take advantage of when you have the chance. Rather, these cultures expect that the same opportunities and risks will come again because time is a cycle. Meyer doesn’t mention this in her book nor does she argue that Asian countries share a different framework of time perception. However, most Asian countries lie on the polychronic end of her scale—and at least one resource suggests that polychronic cultures view time as cyclical, although it does not delve into much detail.

How Polychronic Cultures Develop

Meyer suggests that one reason cultures become polychronic is because their countries are unpredictable.

Meyer notes that many developing countries are unpredictable. But she stops short of arguing that all polychronic cultures are necessarily in developing countries.

In some countries, governments are unreliable. Holidays are determined not by the calendar, but by religious leaders. Annual natural disasters shut down large aspects of your business.

In such an environment, a company’s financial success has little to do with how efficiently it runs. Rather, it depends on two factors.

The first is adaptability: successful companies and managers are able to take environmental changes in stride and adjust how they work.

The second is the quality of their relationships: Successful companies and managers are able to keep their employees loyal in times of hardship.

Prioritizing time in these environments would be counterintuitive at best and harmful at worst. Strictly adhering to a schedule might hinder a company’s ability to adjust to various situations. Docking a worker’s pay for arriving one minute late (a common practice in many monochronic cultures) could anger the worker and cause them to desert the company far more easily.

So when relationships and adaptability take priority, schedules become less important and thus more flexible.

As evidence, Meyer notes that almost all personal trust cultures are also polychronic.

How Time Perception Affects Culture: Why Polychronism Might Inhibit Industrialization

It’s possible that having a polychronic culture inhibits industrialization. In Manana, Manana: Trans-Cultural Perceptions of Time and the Role of Polychronism in Latin American Legal System, author Audrey Pumariega suggests that polychronism contributes to corruption and inefficiency in Latin American judicial proceedings.

Polychronism prioritizes personal relationships, so people are more likely to give favors based on these relationships. This prioritization of personal relationships also leads to a distrust of strangers—which expands into a distrust of institutions.

Pumariega also suggests that polychronism increases inefficiency for numerous reasons, including the following.

First, lawyers don’t learn new laws by studying them all at once, the way monochronic lawyers do. Instead, they study new laws as they need to use them and while they’re doing other work, which ends up costing their clients more money.

Secondly, the flexible attitude towards time is also evident during legal proceedings. This delays the long sequential chain of getting to trial. For example, important players might be late to the first meeting, which delays the subsequent steps of the legal process.

Of course, corruption and inefficiency are problems in monochronic cultures as well. But if true, polychronism might contribute to a delay in industrialization.

Strategies for Working in Cultures That View Time Differently

In every other chapter of her book, Meyer presents strategies for working with each kind of culture.

However, in her chapter on scheduling, Meyer only suggests generally applicable strategies that you can use when working with any culture that views time differently than you do.

So in this section, we'll first present the general strategies that Meyer recommends. We’ll then recommend more specific strategies we've developed that you can use in monochronic and polychronic cultures.

General Strategies to Use in Cultures That View Time Differently

Adjust to the other culture.

Instead of trying to impose your own cultural values on time, adapt to the people you’re working with. This is especially true if you are visiting another culture.

As simple as this strategy seems, there are often nuances that can be difficult to get right when adjusting to other cultures' perceptions of time. The only thing you can do is try, fail, and learn from your mistakes the next time.

Set expectations.

If you are leading a team, creating a team culture can supersede the cultural patterns of your team members. Setting clear expectations about scheduling, either from you or through discussion with your team, will help you all be more effective and reduce frustration.

(Shortform note: This is an example of creating processes, which we’ll discuss in further detail at the end of this summary.)

Withhold judgment.

All cultural differences can be a source of frustration. However, Meyer pinpoints scheduling as one that is particularly vulnerable to cultural superiority. Members of both polychronic and monochronic cultures think the other’s way of doing things is extremely inefficient and stressful.

You may not be able to understand how your foreign business partner works. But as you work, remember that she’s probably equally confused about how you work. When working and scheduling cross-culturally, the only correct way is the one that works for each of you.

Why These Strategies Matter When Scheduling

These strategies are all applicable more broadly to dealing with other cultures. So why does Meyer pinpoint them here? Perhaps these strategies are particularly effective or necessary when scheduling across cultures.

For example, adjusting to how another culture works is a major theme of this book. However, Meyer repeatedly notes instances where adjusting fully to another culture is harmful, like when people from high-context cultures try to imitate low-context communication and end up offending their low-context colleagues. Adjusting what time you show up to a team dinner is an easier task.

Similarly, most of us prefer our own way of doing things, but Meyer takes pains to describe how both monochronic and polychronic people think the other’s way is inefficient and stressful. Maybe withholding judgment in this context is particularly important simply because there is more judgment to be withheld.

Shortform Exclusive: Strategies for Working in Monochronic Cultures

Be punctual.

People from monochronic cultures pay more attention to the clock than you might be used to. So when you make an appointment with someone from a monochronic culture, arrive at the exact time that you have agreed upon, and inform them if you are going to be late.

Different cultures have different acceptable windows of lateness. But if you're not familiar with a culture, your best bet is to arrive as close to the original start time as possible. And remember that in some cultures, even arriving on time can be considered late.

Set and keep timelines.

People from monochronic cultures may feel more comfortable with timelines. They understand that interruptions do happen, but having a general idea is better than having no idea at all.

However, if you do set a time, make sure that you keep it, barring extreme unforeseen circumstances. Breaking a deadline without an acceptable reason may do more harm than good. And remember that whether a reason is acceptable or not will be defined by the monochronic culture, not by you.

Shortform Exclusive: Strategies for Working in Polychronic Culture

Remember that plans are fluid.

In monochronic cultures, it’s generally rude to break plans without extreme extenuating circumstances. But in polychronic cultures, plans are far more fluid. So if somebody cancels a plan with you in a polychronic culture, remind yourself that it’s normal. Don’t take it as a personal offense.

Just start.

When Cultures Collide argues that people from polychronic cultures dislike leaving things unfinished. They might not show up on time, but they also probably won’t leave until you’ve accomplished your goal.

You can use this knowledge to your advantage, like the British man described in When Cultures Collide did. Instead of waiting several hours for his busy Greek business partner to turn up for appointments, the Brit learned the Greek’s schedule on the day of, then intercepted him where he could. Since the Greek didn’t like to leave things unfinished, he would sit with the Brit until their business had finished.

Epilogue: What to Keep in Mind to Work Effectively Across Cultures

In the epilogue, Meyer presents several strategies to use when working across global teams.

In this section, we’ll combine those strategies with some of the other, more general strategies she suggests in previous chapters. First, we’ll explain how to combine the axes so you can effectively determine how two cultures differ. Then, we’ll present general principles to keep in mind when working globally. Finally, we’ll present strategies you can use when managing cross-cultural teams.

Understanding How Two Cultures Differ: How to Use the Axes Together

The axes described in this book offer a useful tool you can use to compare two cultures.

To do so, Meyer recommends looking at all eight axes simultaneously. Evaluate where each culture lies on each axis. Then, ask yourself: On what axes are these cultures similar? Where are they furthest apart?

In order to mitigate the frustration caused by cultural differences, focus your attention on the axes that lie furthest apart. By following the strategies presented in this book, you can prevent misunderstandings from forming and/or address the issues that have already begun.

(Shortform note: Meyer uses the visual of the “culture map” to help the reader combine these scales. While visual learners may find this helpful, it’s not necessary, and may be visually confusing, to draw a line connecting all the axes. It’s sufficient to look at each of the eight axes independently to evaluate which need the most attention.)

General Principles for Working Effectively Across Cultures

You must first understand your own culture.

Meyer argues that the first step to becoming an effective cross-cultural businessperson is to understand how your culture works and how it differs from other cultures.

Why? We tend to assume that everybody works the way that we do because our way is the ‘normal’ way. It’s only when we first understand how our culture is unique in some capacity that we become more able to appreciate and work with the differences in other cultures.

(Shortform note: Meyer focuses exclusively on national cultures, so in this strategy, she’s referring to understanding only how your country’s culture has affected your work. But this finding is also true for other kinds of cultures that we may be parts of. In addition to understanding our national culture, looking at what other kinds of cultures—our gender and generation, for example—have influenced us is also an essential business skill.)

Be wary of lumping cultures together for the wrong reasons.

Many of us assume that cultures that are geographically close to each other must be similar. Sometimes, this is true—Japan and South Korea are both high-context cultures. But we’ve seen several examples throughout this summary that don’t fit that pattern. For example, France and Germany share a border. However, France is a higher-context culture, while Germany favors low-context communication.

As such, Meyer reminds us that geographical proximity is not necessarily an indication of cultural similarity. Be wary of acting the same way in different places just because they're close to each other.

(Shortform note: Why might cultures that are near each other share similar features? We’ve seen throughout the summary that sometimes, it’s because they have a shared history—like they were both part of the Roman Empire. Another reason may be that they have similar landscapes. The academic discipline of cultural geography is based on the idea that landscapes and cultures have a circular relationship: A country’s landscape influences the culture that develops there, and this culture influences the landscape in turn.)

Meyer also cautions against lumping cultures together because they’re similar in one respect.

For example, Australia and Spain have similar attitudes towards feedback and fall in the middle of the feedback spectrum. As such, you might be tempted to assume that they also have similar attitudes about communication. This is not the case. Australia is one of the lowest context countries in the world, but Spain falls in the middle of the communication spectrum as well. So if you communicate to a Spaniard just as you would to an Australian, you might offend the Spaniard.

So, Meyer states, it's important to consider each spectrum individually. Don’t create relationships between countries where there are none.

(Shortform note: Remember, too, that just because cultures are similar in one spectrum doesn’t mean the same behavior will be tolerated in both. One example is communication: High-context cultures both send unspoken messages, but the same words can have dramatically different meanings if the cultures’ histories and social norms differ dramatically. Another is scheduling: If you assume that since being five minutes late in one monochronic culture is no big deal, you can be five minutes late in all of them, you’re in for a surprise.)

Be patient and flexible.

Adjusting your behavior to others’ cues, especially when you don’t always understand them, requires patience and adaptability. But when you can utilize these skills effectively, you will be a powerful asset to any organization. (Shortform note: Struggling to become more patient? Practice by waiting for things you’re excited about. The more you wait, the more patient you’ll become.)

Remember that, while culture is an essential piece of the puzzle, it is only a piece.

Our personalities aren’t defined exclusively by culture, but we are all heavily influenced by the cultures we grew up in. So in an increasingly globalized world, the ability to discern between individual quirks and evidence of a cultural pattern is an essential leadership skill.

This is nothing new: Leaders have always needed to separate generally accepted ideas about human behavior from the reality of the individuals in front of them. What's new is the increasing likelihood that we will encounter people in the workplace with cultures vastly different from our own.

While this can be greatly challenging, it can also be greatly rewarding, as you learn new practices and ways of thinking that enrich your life.

(Shortform note: If culture is just another piece of the puzzle, it follows that learning to become a better leader in general can also improve your effectiveness at managing people across cultures. But as we’ve seen, effective business leadership differs among cultures, so following traditional Western business advice may backfire. We’ve previously suggested reading business/leadership books from the country you’ll be working with. But for more generally applicable leadership advice, consider reading Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. Since the original text is geared towards military conflict in Asia, you may find it easier to interpret these strategies to fit an intercultural context than you would a regular business book.)

General Strategies for Managing Cross-Cultural Teams

Throughout her book, Meyer presents several strategies both managers and non-managers can use when working with cultures unfamiliar to them. However, in her epilogue, Meyer focuses mostly on strategies managers can use when their teams need to work with different cultures or consist of people from different cultures.

In this section, we’ll present the key strategies Meyer recommends when creating and leading cross-cultural teams.

Strategies for Creating Cross-Cultural Teams

Determine whether diversity is necessary.

While diversity is great for collaboration and innovation, a team that needs to deliver a product efficiently may be better with members who understand each other's cultures easily. Meyer urges you to seriously consider whether a diverse group is necessary for your needs, since diversity necessarily invites conflict.

(Shortform note: You might also consider the nature of your project. Cultures differ in their attitudes towards technology and how it should be involved in their environment: Control cultures view technology as a positive tool to control their environment, subjugation cultures are wary of technology and generally prefer their current, natural environment, and harmonization cultures strive for some form of balance between the two. So if you’re working on a project that involves controlling the environment with technology, you might resist hiring diversely.)

Find or become a cultural bridge.

People on your team who have experience working or living multiculturally can help people who are new to working outside their culture—especially if you train them well. Alternately, with the knowledge you’ve learned from this book as well as your own experiences, you too can become a bridge and help your team members gain the understanding necessary to work effectively with cultures.

(Shortform note: Meyer doesn’t specify how to train your cultural bridge. But if they’re multicultural, one place you can start is by having them evaluate where each culture they’re familiar with is on each spectrum, then deciding where their personal views fall. Having a crystal-clear view of which culture influences which aspects of their work personalities will help them identify which aspects to amplify or alter when dealing with each culture.)

Meyer also suggests potentially limiting cross-cultural contact to only the bridges on your team. If you only need to communicate with different cultures occasionally, having just a few people do so reduces the chances of miscommunication.

(Shortform note: Use this strategy with caution. For example, if you’re working with a hierarchical culture, you may offend your foreign business partners by having a lower-ranking bridge communicate with them.In this case, use the bridge as an in-house cultural consultant instead.)

Consider the makeup of your team strategically.

If you control the makeup of your team, try to limit the number of cultures on the team. Fewer cultures means fewer opportunities for clashing. (Shortform note: On the one hand, consider selecting cultures that complement the skills you need on your team. If you need to make many decisions quickly, you might tend towards hiring people who decide individually. On the other hand, remember that there are many benefits of creating a diverse team, and the pros may outweigh the cons.)

That said, be careful of having large groups of the same culture represented on a multicultural team. This can result in cultural cliques and sow discord. Meyer even suggests rotating people through different work locations, if applicable, to avoid cultural cliques. (Shortform note: If you can’t rotate work locations, assigning seats at meetings is a simpler way to enforce physical separation and a commonly recommended method for combating workplace cliques.)

Strategies for Leading Cross-Cultural Teams

Talk about your differences.

According to Meyer, when people understand that their culture influences how they work, they become better at working with people from different cultures. Presumably, this is because it externalizes what others perceive as their faults, so they take criticism less personally and become more open to adapting. To kickstart this conversation, Meyer suggests having a casual team meeting or dinner where you discuss what you’ve learned in this book. You can also ask your team to read a few chapters.

She then recommends asking discussion questions like: How do you think our different cultures affect our teamwork? How can we use our understanding of our differences to improve our teamwork?

For this to be most effective, Meyer recommends grace, humility, and humor. Laugh at your own culture, praise the other, and speak from a place of learning instead of judgment. You want your team members to feel comfortable speaking honestly.

And don’t fret so much if your team doesn’t come to a conclusion. What matters is that you’ve opened the door to this conversation.

How to Lead High-Stakes Conversations

Does the idea of leading such a conversation intimidate you? That’s natural. Conversations about cultural differences are rife with opportunities for disagreement, and they can get extremely emotional if people get defensive. Crucial Conversations suggests several strategies to use during exactly this type of high-stakes emotional conversation. For example, try clarifying exactly why you’re having this conversation at the meeting and why it’s mutually beneficial for all of you. Explaining that it’s not a scolding but an opportunity for mutual collaboration will help your team feel safe and pave the way for a productive conversation—especially if you have people from hierarchical cultures on your team.

Create the right processes.

Just as organizational culture can sometimes supersede national culture, so too can team culture supersede national culture. (Shortform note: If you feel uncomfortable messaging this to your team, emphasize that no cultural trait is inherently “bad.” It just may not be appropriate to meet your team’s specific needs. We saw this with Korean Air. By switching their in-air language to English, a low-context organizational culture superseded the high-context national culture, and resulted in a drastic improvement in Korean Air’s safety record. While English isn’t inherently better than Korean, it was the more appropriate language for Korean Air’s purpose.)

You can use this to your advantage by creating processes that work with your team. Refer to the strategies suggested in Chapter 1 regarding communication and Chapter 5 regarding decision-making.

The best time to try this is when your team first starts working together and before cultural clashes are allowed to simmer underneath the surface. But the second best time is now.

(Shortform note: Atomic Habits explains that habits are triggered by various environmental cues. That may be why it’s best to develop the right processes when you first start working together. If you haven’t had a chance to associate your normal habits with new environmental cues yet, it might be easier to associate new patterns of behavior with those cues.)

Not all cultural differences, it seems, are surmountable with the correct processes. In her chapter on reasoning, for example, Meyer suggests that team members read the relevant chapter of her book and then adapt the best way they can—but she doesn’t specifically discuss developing persuasion processes. Why not? Perhaps because this would involve changing the way you think and logic—a daunting and nearly impossible task.

But when you can, such as with scheduling or decision-making, creating the right processes is a good way to limit the cultural clashes on your team.

Assign tasks based on cultural strengths.

Understanding how your employee’s cultural background influences their work can not only improve how your team works, but it can also be beneficial in other ways.

Meyer recommends assigning tasks and projects based on an employee’s cultural strengths. For example, if you have a client who highly values a personal relationship but you consider it a bit of a burden, assigning someone from a personal trust culture to that client may help both your client, yourself, and your employee.

(Shortform note: Meyer doesn’t mention that it’s generally considered unacceptable to make someone do something just because of their cultural background. Consider a compromise instead. Explain the situation to the employee in question, and ask how they’d feel about working with that client. In the situation above, if your employee happens to be introverted, they might opt out. And now you’ve learned more about how your employee’s personal traits interplay with their cultural background.)

Exercise: Understanding Our Own Cultural Biases

You’ve learned a lot about what caused the problems in the situation you described at the beginning of the guide. Return to that situation and see if you view it from a new perspective.

• Review the situation you described in the beginning of the book. What axis did the cultural difference end up lying on? (There may be more than one.) The eight axes are Communication, Feedback, Thinking, Leadership, Decision-Making, Trust, Disagreement, and Time Perception.

• Is this the axis you expected the difference to lie on? Why or why not?

• What were the cultural expectations that colored your view of the situation? How, specifically, did it differ from the other person’s?

• Name three specific techniques you can use to improve your current situation. If you named a past situation, name three specific techniques you can use to avoid similar situations in the future. For example can you be open about your own cultural biases so they understand you’re not intentionally trying to offend?