I was recently lent a book called The Culture Map, written by an American international business school professor called Erin Meyer. Meyer specialises in providing insight for businesses struggling to resolve difficulties arising from cultural differences. She defines eight distinctive areas where cultures can behave contrarily, each area consisting of a spectrum, and plots each country by their typical behaviour observed. The eight areas are communicating, deciding, trusting, evaluating, persuading, leading, scheduling and disagreeing.

What results is the ability to see where your culture places you compared to the counterpart business or individual. You can then observe relatively which side of the spectrum you fall from each other.

A really easy example is the evaluating scale. The evaluating scale ranges from ‘Direct Negative Feedback’ to ‘Indirect Negative Feedback’. The Dutch fall on the extremity of ‘Direct Negative Feedback’. Not only does this mean that their evaluating process will seem harsh and clinical, even rude and unacceptable, to countries that fall towards the corollary, but that the chances are that every other country will find them in some degree too direct because they all fall to the other side of them in the scale.

Another example is the difference between US and Far Eastern cultures when it comes to communicating.

The US is a very low-context communicating nation. From a young age, Americans are taught that successful and clear communication is explicit and repetitive. It is common practice in US business to have an agenda for a meeting, to stick to it, to follow up the meeting with correspondence detailing the minutes and outcomes of the meeting and to repeat and reinforce the actions that have culminated from it.

Far Eastern countries such as China and Japan are very high-context communicators. In these cultures, to be as explicit as the US could be considered rude or offensive. Communicating in these countries is all about reading between the lines in order to preserve the respect and dignity among all levels involved. Hierarchy, tradition and personal feelings all take precedence over efficiency.

That’s not to say the Chinese or Japanese way isn’t efficient, however. The US method of communicating transpires from when the New World was first being discovered and acting fast was the key to success. Communication, therefore, needed to be as expedient as possible. Also, with no established common culture, there was no other alternative. High-context communication can only operate after a lengthy period of building a cultural standard and tradition. The deeper the cultural well the more high-context and subtle successful communication can become. Acting in this way, there is an understanding that is far more complex than the literal. The lack of speed compared to low-context countries is often countered by a more harmonious outcome between both parties.

The most interesting aspect of the book for me also stemmed from the communicating scale. Meyer asks the question that if you were to divide the possible interaction between two cultures into quadrants, which of the four possible combinations of low-context/high-context countries would result in the most challenging situation? I, like a kipper, fell into the trap of thinking that a high-context communicator trying to impart something to a low-context communicator would result in the biggest failure. Meyer, however, convinces me otherwise. The likeliest failure would be the result of a high-context to high-context dialogue. This is because high-context communication systems are built up other large periods of time out of a particular culture. A situation with both parties attempting to read between the lines but on different hidden terms and traditions is most likely to end in confusion.

I got about half-way through the book and started to question the weight the author was allocating to cultural differences. In an increasingly multi-cultural world, are we not going to see less need for these observations as we become more accustomed and in tune with other styles of thinking and communicating? And how much are we really defined by our cultural background? Just because I was born in such-and-such a country does that mean I can be categorised in such a way? Is this academic stereotyping, and, if it is, is it dangerous?

I was sitting on the fence with these thoughts until the book’s conclusion and luckily for me the conclusion itself takes a moment to address these exact fears. For Meyer, the Culture Map is not a playbook to stick rigidly to, it is more a helpful resource and technique for when things country-to-country hit a stumbling block that neither party can resolve or even identify. In such cases, both sides often come away from the problem with the suspicion that the root of the issue is cultural.

Also, it’s fair to say that we are greatly influenced by the cultural in which we grow up in. We are taught by the traditions of our culture to think and act in certain ways. We are taught particular techniques for resolving issues, for communicating and we are given particular tables of values dictating to us what is virtuous and what is not. All of this comes down to nurture. Our nature is not denied - it still has a great influence - but when having to operate in the business world at a national level you are often confined to the scope of the typical and traditional culture that your country has instilled as it’s the most productive course for all to take; it’s the common ground. Our nature can shift us on the scale but in comparison to other cultures it tends to be a relatively minor adjustment.

I also found great interest in the book in regards to my long accustomed fascination with Sweden. Has my obsession with Swedish culture since the age of 12 had any kind of overriding effect on how I conduct myself professionally? Incredibly, I think it has. For a few of the scales, Sweden and the UK are almost identical anyway but for the remainder I found that my way of approaching business is far more egalitarian, consensual and principles-based than the UK norm. Just like a Swede. The only anomaly was my preference to be confrontational which is not a trait shared by either country… it’s one shared by most philosophy graduates though!

All in all, I thought that the observations in The Culture Map are incredibly valuable to anybody that crosses paths with people from different cultures, whether professionally or personally. I shudder now thinking back to how I’ve interacted with people in the past; they must have thought I was altogether crazy! I think Meyer’s work goes very well in tandem with personality testing which I’ve already found to be conducive in day-to-day life. Everything we can do to understand others and oneself can only lead to positive and productive outcomes.

This month's favourites:
   Scallops Hotel, Sovereign Nose of Your Arrogant Face
   Erin Meyer, The Culture Map
   Through a Glass Darkly (1961)