Table of Contents
Introduction to the Cultural Map
The Culture Map explores the topic of cross-cultural communication. The author, Erin Meyer, is a professor at INSEAD's School of Business Administration, specializing in cross-cultural management. Erin Meyer's book came to my attention after I read her book, co-authored with the CEO of Netflix, on the topic of cross-cultural communication.Rule ZeroA book inRule ZeroOne of the chapters that talks a little bit about the difficulties Netflix has had in being transparent after becoming a multinational corporation refers to the notion of cultural difference as described in The Cultural Map.
Each culture has its own customary way of doing things in different aspects, for example, we are more familiar with the American habit of speaking more directly and the Asian more indirectly. In the process of communication, such differences may cause a lot of misunderstandings. To give a simple example, Chinese people are used to respecting senior people in a meeting, and will wait to be asked by the moderator to express their views out of respect, while Americans in the same situation may feel that this Chinese person has not been speaking at all and is not prepared and feel very unhappy. Another example is that Indians are used to shaking their heads to show that they are interested in listening, whereas in most other countries in the world shaking their heads means that they are not in favor of the idea.
The original purpose of the culture scale introduced in this book is to help us understand the position of different cultures in the culture (of course, individuals still have differences), and to learn more about the views of different cultures on the way of communication and the way of doing things, which is very helpful for cross-cultural communication and doing things.
(這本書的原文書名是The Culture Map — breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business，我在找這本書的時候發現美國不太容易找到本書的中文版，所以看的是原文，以下用詞也許會和中文版翻譯有些出入。)
- Link to blog: https://bit.ly/3kliGcH
- Rakuten Links. https://bit.ly/2UHweq6
culture scale
This book introduces the Culture Scale, a scale with eight different dimensions. The eight dimensions are.
- Communication Style: Low Situation vs High Situation
- Criticism: Directly giving negative feedback vs Indirectly giving negative feedback
- Convince: Principle First vs Application First
- Leadership Style: Affirmative vs Hierarchical
- Decision Making: Consensus vs Top Down
- Trust Building: Task Oriented vs Relationship Oriented
- Handling Differences: Direct Confrontation vs Avoiding Confrontation
- Timing: Linear vs Flexible
Each facet acts as a spectrum, and if we place each culture on the spectrum, we can see where the cultures are relative to each other. The way to use the culture scale is that by analyzing where the cultures are located, we can understand the possible differences of each member of a cross-cultural team or communication and find a better way to deal with them.
Communication Style: Low Situation vs High Situation
In American or Anglo-Saxon culture, low context communication is considered the "better" way to communicate. Low-context means that the basic principle of communication assumes that there is no common background or situation between the two parties, and therefore the words are not shared with each other.It's simple and clear.It is important. In this culture, if I say something and you don't get it, it's my problem. The United States has the lowest level of situational communication in the world, and a lot of that comes from the fact that the United States has historically been a racial melting pot, where people come from different places.
Relatively speaking, in many Asian and African cultures, as well as in Latin and French cultures, good communication is high context. Most countries with high context cultures share a common history and people are accustomed to having a common understanding of each other, so if you don't understand something I'm saying, it's probably your problem. The most obvious example of this phenomenon is Japan, where "reading the air" is a basic skill, and if you can't read the atmosphere of a scene, you're considered a weirdo. In high-context cultures, it may be considered rude to speak too plainly. For example, in Iranian culture, if you ask a friend if they want something to eat, you have to ask three times, and the first two times the friend will definitely refuse out of politeness.
People from lower contextual cultures may feel that people from higher contextual cultures are more opaque and unable to communicate effectively. The person from the higher contextual culture may find the person from the lower contextual culture impolite (do you think I'm an idiot for talking so much?). The following is an example of how this can be done. It is important to note that depending on the composition of the team, it is the relative position on the scale that is important, not the absolute position. British culture is a low context culture, but to Americans they find British speech difficult to understand.
If we are communicating with someone from a higher context culture, we need to be careful to observe and listen, ask more questions to make sure we understand what the other person is saying, and try not to assume that the other person is deliberately ignoring details. When communicating with people in lower contexts, you should try to speak more clearly. Most importantly, in cross-cultural teams, the best strategy is to assume that effective communication is low context communication. After all, we all come from different backgrounds, and clarity is the most effective. Keeping clear minutes is a good way to do this.
Criticism: Directly giving negative feedback vs Indirectly giving negative feedback
Often we think that more direct cultures (low context cultures) will be more direct in their criticism of their subordinates, but in fact there is a difference between how negative feedback is given and how it is communicated during discussions, so it is worthwhile to discuss criticism as a separate facet of the conversation. Although Americans are the most direct in communication, they are only in the middle of the pack in terms of criticism, far less direct than people in many European countries. In this respect, the most direct critic in the world is Israel, but in fact, Israelis are a highly contextualized culture.
When dealing with people who are more direct in their criticisms of cultural origins, if you feel that they are being harsh, it's best to remember that they may just be honestly expressing their opinions and that they need to improve. On the other hand, even though the other person is more direct in their criticisms, if you criticize them in a way that you feel is direct, you may accidentally cross the line, so it's better to maintain the scale that you are accustomed to.
Convince: Principle first vs Application first
Convincing style refers to the order of priority in an argument. How one argues that one's opinion is good is quite different for those who prioritize principle and those who prioritize application.
The Germans are used to starting with theories and principles, making sure that everyone understands the principles before going into the details of the reasoning, and finally mentioning the real problems to be solved and so on. Americans, on the other hand, are the complete opposite, focusing on application, usually starting with how things should be done and then explaining why. If there is a conversation between the two ends of the scale, the German may talk at length about principles, and by the time he gets to the main point, the American has already lost interest. Or, if the Americans come in and talk about what to do, the Germans may have a lot of questions about the principles, and the Americans may wonder why you don't believe me. When the audience has both, the best thing to do is to quickly switch between principle and application, so that the application-first people don't lose patience or the principle-first people don't get it.
Compared to European and American cultures, which are more linear in their thinking, Asians are less likely to prioritize principles or applications, and are generally accustomed to thinking in a holistic manner. Therefore, we will see Asians telling a long story, with only a small point related to the original topic at the end of the story. Therefore, in order to convince Asians, it is best to explain clearly all the major aspects of the whole topic before discussing the problems that need to be solved directly.
Leadership Style: Affirmative vs Hierarchical
At both ends of the spectrum, people in East Asian countries are more hierarchical, while those in Scandinavian countries are more egalitarian. In the more hierarchical cultures, people have to be careful about everything, and some things have symbolic meanings, such as to whom the tea should be served first, and not to communicate beyond the hierarchical level, etc. In the more egalitarian cultures, there are no such worries. In a more egalitarian culture, people do not have to worry about these things. On the contrary, if they do not go directly to the person in charge of a problem, it is considered to be a sign of inefficiency.
People from more egalitarian cultures should be careful not to step on the mines of hierarchical cultures. Supervisors can make the rules of the cross-cultural game clear. However, for subordinates from more hierarchical cultures, just making it clear may not encourage them to take the initiative to cross hierarchical boundaries, so you have to rely on patience and skill to facilitate direct communication.
Decision Making: Consensus vs Top Down
In a more consensus-based culture, there is a long discussion before a decision is made at any level, but once a decision is made, it can be implemented very quickly because everyone understands it. In a top-down decision-making culture, the person in power makes the decision and starts implementing it straight away, with little time for discussion. As a result, there may be difficulties in implementation, and it is easier to change direction (which seems to be quite unpredictable).
We may think that decision-making should correspond to leadership, but in reality it corresponds more to persuasion, so the United States is once again an exception. American society is accustomed to affirmative action, but in general, decision-making in American companies is often a unilateral decision made by a superior, and everyone rushes in without so much as a discussion. This is a culture of speed, where you know if it will work or not if you do it directly, and you can change it if there is a problem. Japan is a very hierarchical country, but the decision-making style is quite consensual, and it takes a long time to communicate and reach a consensus.
The conflict between the two decision-making styles is that after a decision has been made, the person who is accustomed to consensus decision-making will think that there is no need to change the decision once it has been made. When the consensus decision maker meets a person who is used to making direct decisions and then may change his or her attitude, the trust between the two parties will soon break down after one or two changes of attitude: the consensus decision maker will think that all decisions cannot be counted, while the other party will think that it is unreasonable to insist on a wrong decision. If the cultures of the two parties are different, it is better to discuss the decision-making style before the discussion, so that it will not be difficult to remedy the breakdown of mutual trust.
Trust Building: Task Oriented vs Relationship Oriented
Cultures also differ greatly in how they build trust. A task-oriented culture trusts professionals, and whether or not to entrust something to a person depends on that person's performance. Americans are a representative example of this culture, and although they are friendly to everyone, they do everything by the book. Relationship-oriented cultures, on the other hand, are based on personal relationships; if I know you well, I trust you more and tend to leave things to people I know, and Asian cultures tend to be more on this end of the spectrum.
The reason has to do with the way a society operates. If a society is accustomed to relying on the law, it is easier for it to do things in a fair manner. In some places, the law is not always properly enforced, and it is too dangerous to trust an unknown expert in case you are cheated.
Although culturally different, the solution is quite simple. No matter which end of the scale you are on, it always pays to be kind to others.
Handling Differences: Direct Confrontation vs Avoiding Confrontation
Dealing with disagreement is a bit like criticizing, but the difference is that the disagreement in question here is more in the context of a team meeting, rather than a situation where a superior is evaluating a subordinate. In some cultures, like Germany, debate is encouraged and people with different views are confronted directly in a meeting, and hearing a lot of vitriol is a sign that people are interested in the views you are putting forward. On the other hand, in many Asian cultures, it's very sensitive to directly express opposing views in a meeting, especially against a superior. There will be these two kinds of difference, the main reason is because of the proposed opposing views accidentally damage the relationship between the different consequences, in this kind of relationship-oriented culture in Asia in the event of damage to the mood of the superiors may lead to serious consequences.
Of course, it is helpful to have a meeting with a wide range of opinions. People who are used to direct confrontation can make it clear before they speak that they want to hear counterarguments to make sure everyone agrees with the final analysis. To encourage people who avoid confrontation to express their opinions, it's best if the boss isn't present, so it's easier for everyone to discuss things separately.
Timing: Linear vs Flexible
Finally, this is simply a way of saying that people are interested inpunctualThe so-called linear time culture is more accurate in counting minutes and seconds. In so-called linear time cultures, minutes and seconds are counted more accurately, such as Japan and Germany, where appointments should not be delayed. However, in many Asian and African cultures, time is very flexible and it is not uncommon to be 15 minutes and half an hour late, or to suddenly ask to meet without even making an appointment. We just have to be aware of the differences between cultures, be flexible, and observe and cooperate with other people's practices.
reflections
Cross-cultural communication is in fact a great knowledge. The biggest difficulty in cross-cultural communication is that most people grow up and are educated in a single culture, and they may not realize that what is very intuitive to them is actually unimaginable to people of other cultures.
The actual situation is far more complicated than a few simple examples. Imagine how many different cultures there are in the world, even the majority white European countries have so many different histories and languages, and have developed so many different cultures, that the people of different parts of the European continent alone cannot fully understand each other. There are also many people in the world who have grown up in more than one culture, so the communication between people is often prone to misunderstandings that are not easy to detect. Being aware of cultural differences when communicating with people from other cultures can prevent many unnecessary misunderstandings.
I work in a cross-cultural environment myself, and many of the examples in this book are heartfelt, such as the conflict between Germans and Americans, which is very common in my workplace. If someone had mediated these differences in advance, many unnecessary misunderstandings could have been avoided and the team could have operated smoothly. I can only say that I wish my boss had time to read this book.
Cultural differences are easy to talk about, but difficult to grasp. This book organizes a lot of examples and explains the common differences in cross-cultural communication very clearly, and the cultural scale charts in the book are also very valuable. I suggest that anyone who is interested should buy this book directly. The English version is actually very readable, so if you have an average English ability, you can consider reading the original version.
- Link to blog: https://bit.ly/3kliGcH
- Rakuten Links. https://bit.ly/2UHweq6
Thank you for reading this post. If you like my post, please follow up withFacebook Fan Specialist,Twitter,IGThe
