The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business

Product Information

Consensual scale – Cultures with consensual deciding scales involve everyone in the decision-making process. The final decision is made after all concerned reach a consensus. This type of deciding scale helps in making decisions faster. Countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands are examples of consensual deciding scales. Has your boss ever yelled at you directly for having made an error, "David, this work in unacceptable, why did you prepare the report in this way?" As I work almost exclusively with clients from outside Europe, the differences between what we consider normal business behavior and theirs are quite significant. I recognized myself in many of the situations presented in the book and maybe I would have dealt better with some problems if I had read this book in advance. The world is a melting pot of cultures. Every country, culture, region, or religion has different rules, regulations, rituals, and norms. Today, the world has become smaller and interactions between different cultures, especially at the workplace, take place on a daily basis. It is therefore essential for leaders in all organizations to be able to understand that people exhibit different behaviours that can be most certainly attributed to the difference in cultures.

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 Companies in an egalitarian world, such as Australia or Scandinavian countries, usually implement flat organizational structures. The distance between a boss and a subordinate is low. In Asian and Arabic whereby hierarchical cultures rule, the distance between the boss and a subordinate is high. When a manager is leading in a new environment it is always best for them to adapt their own style to that of the culture of their employees. A leader in an egalitarian workplace must give employees the freedom and power to make their own decisions. 4. Deciding: Consensual vs. top-down This one came heavy with praise from various colleagues. Strong concept, but profoundly tedious and slow-going in its execution. As per the form with very many business books (this happens nearly every time), it's making points that could easily be condensed into a short essay. The book was OK. It offers a good overview of differences between cultures. Sometimes we may assume that 2 cultures are similar, but in the end there is a possibility of conflict, because they have different "mentality" on a certain point (trust or time perception, for instance). A work colleague recommended this to me. I generally struggle with non-fiction, unless it is a topic that really, really interests me. Work-related literature is even worse. However, if you work in an international field and frequently deal with other countries and cultures, this book offers some eye-opening insights.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.) We build relationships and acquire trust differently in task-based and relationship-based societies. Societies may base their trust on relations, or be task-oriented. Societies with relationship-oriented business attitude are most likely ones with weak legal systems, where relationships provide better safety nets than contracts. Confrontational: Debate and confrontation are necessities to make a good decision. Open confrontation and appropriate debate are encouraged (for example Israel). 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.)

I hope this book review has been useful and that you can put the information contained in the book to good use in your leadership journey. Drop me a note if you have any questions on how to apply this to your role.Even though I worked most of my life in task-based societies, the relationship between coworkers was newer than straightforward and most companies I worked with emphasized community as one of their most important values.

Task-based: Trust is built through competence. If someone is capable of doing the job, then I trust him. Work relationships are built and dropped easily (for example Finland). I felt this through my own example and had some kind of proof of this with personality tests as well. 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. Managers handling different cultures should be able to understand the differences between flexible and linear cultures and use culture schedules accordingly for individuals. At the same time, the manager should fix the schedule style for the team as a whole and adapt and change when necessary.

Doing one thing after another. Waiting in line. Creating plans and timetables looked like a universal trait of productivity to me earlier, but this is also rather a trait shaped by our cultural inheritance. 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?