The Culture Map

by Erin Meyer

  I couldn’t help but wonder, “But voilà what?” It seems that my French colleagues simply know what has been decided and who should do what without going through all of the levels of clarification that we are used to in the U.K.

  Shuttleworth was also confused by the e-mail etiquette he encountered:

  In the U.K., as in the U.S., if you send someone an e-mail and that person doesn’t have the answer at their fingertips, both common sense and etiquette call for the receiver to respond within 24 hours saying something like, “I got your message and will get back to you on Wednesday.” In other words, even if you have nothing to say, you should spell out explicitly in a low-context way when you will have something to say. Lack of explicit communication signifies something negative.

  Now, I send an e-mail to our Spanish supplier—who I know does high-quality and on-time work and has a very good level of English—and I may not hear back from him or any of his colleagues for three or four days. I am biting my nails assuming all sorts of problems with my request that prevent a speedy reply . . . either that or the entire staff has fallen ill or the building has burned down so that no one can read their e-mails.

  And then three days later, I receive an e-mail telling me that they have done exactly as requested and everything is under control. Why couldn’t they have said that in the first place?!

  French, Spanish, and Italian are markedly more high-context than Anglo-Saxon cultures. But the cultures of Asia are even more high-context than any in Europe. As the center of the business world tilts towards China, understanding the communication patterns typical of Chinese culture becomes increasingly critical.

  Elisabeth Shen is a consultant who splits her time between Shanghai and Paris, helping Europeans work effectively with the Chinese. This can be quite challenging, since, as Shen observes, “China is a huge country with strong regional differences. In many ways it is difficult to categorize Chinese business culture, given its wide generational gaps and differences between private and public sectors.” However, it’s safe to say that Chinese culture in general is very high-context in comparison with the cultures of the West. Shen explains:

  When Chinese vaguely express an idea or an opinion, the real message is often just implied. They expect their conversational partner to be highly involved and to take an active role in deciphering messages, as well as in mutually creating meaning. In Chinese culture, pang qiao ce ji [beating around the bush] is a style that nurtures an implicit understanding. In Chinese culture, children are taught not to just hear the explicit words but also to focus on how something is said, and on what is not said.

  I collaborated with Shen to conduct interviews with dozens of European managers from various business sectors who had spent significant portions of their careers in different regions of China. They had varying opinions on how to succeed in a Chinese environment. In one of these interviews, Pablo Díaz, a Spanish executive who worked in China for a Chinese textile company for fifteen years, remarked, “In China, the message up front is not necessarily the real message. My Chinese colleagues would drop hints, and I wouldn’t pick them up. Later, when thinking it over, I would realize I had missed something important.” Díaz recounts a discussion he had with a Chinese employee which went something like this:

  MR. DÍAZ: It looks like some of us are going to have to be here on Sunday to host the client visit.

  MR. CHEN: I see.

  MR. DÍAZ: Can you join us on Sunday?

  MR. CHEN: Yes, I think so.

  MR. DÍAZ: That would be a great help.

  MR. CHEN: Yes, Sunday is an important day.

  MR. DÍAZ: In what way?

  MR. CHEN: It’s my daughter’s birthday.

  MR. DÍAZ: How nice. I hope you all enjoy it.

  MR. CHEN: Thank you. I appreciate your understanding.2

  Díaz laughs about the situation now. “I was quite certain he had said he was coming,” Díaz says. “And Mr. Chen was quite certain he had communicated that he absolutely could not come because he was going to be celebrating his daughter’s birthday with his family.”

  Díaz has learned from experience how to avoid falling into these communication snafus:

  If I’m not 100 percent sure what I heard, shrugging my shoulders and leaving with the message that I sort of think I heard is not a good strategy. If I am not sure, I have to take the responsibility to ask for clarification. Sometimes I have to ask three or four times, and although that can be a little embarrassing for both me and my colleague, it is not as embarrassing as having a production line set and ready and waiting for Mr. Chen, who is contentedly singing happy birthday somewhere else.

  STRATEGIES FOR WORKING WITH PEOPLE FROM HIGHER-CONTEXT CULTURES

  As you can see, communicating across cultures can be fraught with invisible difficulties. Whether you consider yourself a low-context or high-context communicator, it’s quite likely you will one day find yourself working with a colleague, client, or partner positioned further to the right on the scale. So being an agile communicator, able to move adroitly in either direction, is a valuable skill for anyone in business.

  When considering strategies for improving your effectiveness, one crucial principle to remember is that communicating is not just about speaking but also listening. Pablo Díaz has learned this from experience. “It isn’t just that my Chinese employees speak between the lines,” he says. “They are also always trying to find out what is behind a comment. This type of listening is not natural for Westerners, who take everything at face value.”

  So when you work with higher-context colleagues, practice listening more carefully. “The best advice I can give,” Díaz says, “is to learn to listen to what is meant instead of what is said. This means reflecting more, asking more clarifying questions, and making an effort to be more receptive to body language cues.” By searching for implicit cues, you can begin to “read the air” a little more accurately.

  Think back to the dialogue between Mr. Chen and Mr. Díaz above. In this dialogue, Mr. Chen says “yes,” but he simultaneously indicates that the real answer is “no.” Saying “no” between the lines is common throughout Asia, including China, Japan, and Korea, and especially when speaking to a boss or a client. If you work with a supplier or a team member from one of these countries, you’ll discover that “no” can come in many guises. A question like “Can you complete this project by next week?” may be greeted by a sharp sucking-in of breath or a noncommittal answer: “It will be very difficult, but I’ll do my best,” “We’ll think about it,” or “It will be hard for these reasons, but let me consider it.”

  With practice, you can learn to read the “no” between the lines. For verification, ask open-ended questions rather than backing the person into a corner that requires a yes or no response. For example, Mr. Díaz could have asked an open-ended clarifying question such as, “How difficult would it be for you to get away from the party to come to work for a few hours?” With persistence, more information will emerge.

  “It is important not to form opinions too quickly,” Díaz suggests, “to listen more, speak less, and then clarify when you are not sure if you understood. You might need to work through another local person in order to get the message deciphered. But if you feel confused, work to get all the information you need to pick up the intended message.” One of the biggest mistakes lower-context managers make is assuming that the other individual is purposely omitting information or unable to communicate explicitly. Most often, the higher-context person is simply communicating in the style to which he is accustomed, with no thought of confusing or misleading you. Simply asking for clarification can work wonders. After a while, you may find you don’t have to ask so many times for clarity, as your counterpart also learns to adapt to you.

  If you are the one sending the message, you may find there is less need to repeat yourself endlessly when speaking with high-context colleagues who listen between the lines. Before repeating yourself, stop talking. Wait to learn whether sayin
g it once is enough. You can always come back to the topic later if you’re not sure whether the message got through.

  When you find yourself stymied or frustrated by misunderstanding, self-deprecation, laughing at yourself, and using positive words to describe the other culture are always good options. For example, when I was searching for the Swagat restaurant in New Delhi, I could have mentioned to the concierge that I come from a country with small towns, few people, and lots of signposts: “Indian people have a knack for finding things that I do not have. Please be so kind as to draw me a map marking every landmark or street I will see on the way to the restaurant.” Or I might have said, “I am really bad at finding things, and this city is totally new to me. Could you please make me a simple drawing that a young child could read, marking exactly what I will see on each step of my way and each road I will cross? If you could include exactly how many minutes it will take me to walk for each part of the journey, that will help, as I do have a poor sense of direction.” Self-deprecation allows you to accept the blame for being unable to get the message and then ask for assistance.

  STRATEGIES FOR WORKING WITH PEOPLE FROM LOWER-CONTEXT CULTURES

  Having consulted frequently with Western companies outsourcing to India, I was quite used to hearing the comments, “When I explained what needed to be done to my Indian team, there were no questions. Later, I realized they hadn’t understood my instructions. Why didn’t they ask for clarification?”

  Later, when the Indian Institute of Planning and Management organized a multiple-city tour where I was to work with executives in four Indian cities, I experienced more of this high-context communication. As I prepared for the trip, I frequently found myself communicating by both phone and e-mail with the university organizers, asking questions like, “Who exactly will be attending my sessions? What kinds of international experience do they have? Why are they interested in hearing from me? What sorts of questions should I anticipate?” Unfortunately, the responses I received were so high-context that I often felt more confused than before I asked. The names, backgrounds, and specific business needs of the attendees remained vague and unknown to me until I arrived in the classroom.

  These experiences prepared me well for a question that one of the class participants asked me during a lunch break. “Madam,” he said politely, “what you have taught us this morning is very important to my daily job. I have never traveled outside India, but I work every day by phone and e-mail with American, Australian, and British clients. What is the best way to build trust with these colleagues and customers?”

  Thinking back to my difficulties of a few weeks earlier as well as previous experience working with Western companies outsourcing to India, I had a ready response:

  Be as transparent, clear, and specific as possible. Explain exactly why you are calling. Assert your opinions transparently. Show all of your cards up front. At the end of the phone call, recap all the key points again, or send an e-mail repeating these points straight afterwards. If you are ever not 100 percent sure what you have been asked to do, don’t read between the lines but state clearly that you don’t understand and ask for clarification. And sometimes it would be better to not be quite so polite, as it gives the impression of vagueness or uncertainty.

  With a little effort and practice, someone from a higher-context environment can learn to work and communicate in a lower-context way. Focus on recognizing when you are expecting the other person to read your intended message between the lines and get in the habit of conveying it more explicitly. Start the conversation by stating the main idea, make your points clearly, and at the end of the discussion recap what has been decided and what will happen next. If you’re not sure whether your ideas have been absorbed, then feel free to ask, “Am I clear enough?” Follow up with an e-mail clarifying anything that might still be a bit vague and stating the main conclusions in writing.

  I’ve come across people from high-context cultures who have gotten so good at switching their styles that they become as low-context as the American on the other end of the phone line.

  STRATEGIES FOR MULTICULTURAL COLLABORATIONS

  What if you have a blend of many cultures all on one team—Americans who recap incessantly and nail everything down in writing, Japanese who read the air, French who speak at the second degree, British who love to use deadpan irony as a form of humor, and Chinese who learn as young children to beat around the bush? Where do you suppose the greatest likelihood of misunderstanding will arise? Consider three options:

  A.One low-context person communicating with someone from another low-context culture (for example, a Dutchman communicating with a Canadian)

  B.A high-context person communicating with a low-context person (for example, a Spaniard communicating with a Dutchman)

  C.One high-context person communicating with someone from another high-context culture (for example. a person from China communicating with a Brazilian).

  Many people assume that the answer is choice B—a low-context/high-context conversation. The correct answer is choice C. On a multicultural team, most misunderstanding takes place between people who come from two high-context cultures with entirely different roots, such as the Brazilians communicating with the Chinese.

  High-context communication works beautifully when we are from the same culture and interpret cultural cues the same way. When two Japanese people communicate, the shared contextual understanding makes it easy for them to read the air. Time is saved (no need to repeat an idea three times), relationships are maintained (no need to tell you a direct “no” when I can hint at it and you can pick up the message), and group harmony is preserved. But when team members come from different cultures, high-context communication breaks down. The speaker may be passing a message between the lines, and the listener may be actively focused on scanning for meaning. But because the two individuals come from completely different cultural contexts, the message received is different from the message sent, and the likelihood of misunderstanding multiplies.

  Fortunately, if you are leading a multicultural team, there’s no need to count the number of team members from the left and right hand of the scale and multiply by the number of members to figure out what to do. There is just one easy strategy to remember: Multicultural teams need low-context processes.

  Pedro Galvez, a Mexican manager at Johnson and Johnson, attended my weeklong program on managing global virtual teams. He found himself managing a team that included both Mexicans and Saudi Arabians—representatives of two very different high-context cultures. Galvez recalls:

  The Saudis had a different way of passing and interpreting messages from the Mexicans, and we quickly began misunderstanding one another. Following a miscommunication between one of my Mexican team members and his Saudi colleague, I spoke with each of them about what had happened. The Mexican told me, “I made it known, so he could see it if he wanted to see it.” I could see that with this kind of misunderstanding occurring, we might be headed for serious trouble.

  After that incident, I brought the team together and we set ground rules. I spoke about the likelihood of misunderstanding given our different languages, our different cultural backgrounds, and the fact that both of our cultures have a tendency to communicate implicitly and pass messages between the lines. I asked the group to come up with solutions for minimizing misunderstanding, and in small groups they developed a process for how we would work together.

  The list of ground rules developed by Galvez’s group was simple but effective. Three levels of verification would take place at the end of any meeting:

  •One person would recap the key points orally, with the task rotating from one team member to another.

  •Each person would summarize orally what he would do next.

  •One person would send out a written recap, again on a rotating basis.

  A similar system of explicit recaps and summaries would be used after one-on-one conversations or phone calls. The purpose—to catch and correct any misund
erstandings or confusions.

  If you have members from more than one high-context culture on your team, lay out the issue and have the team develop their own solutions, as Pedro did. Don’t wait until problems arise. The best moment to develop the processes is when the team is forming, before miscommunication takes place.

  And one more point. Galvez’s team added to their list of rules the following statement: “This is our team culture, which we have explicitly agreed on and all feel comfortable with.” Galvez knew that making everyone comfortable with the explicit, written agreement was both important and challenging. Putting things in writing may signify a lack of trust in some high-context cultures. So when he asked the group to begin putting things in writing, he made sure to lay some groundwork.

  WHEN SHOULD YOU PUT IT IN WRITING?

  The more low-context the culture, the more people have a tendency to put everything in writing. “That was a fine meeting—I’ll send out a written recap.” “Thanks for the phone call—I’ll send you an e-mail listing the next steps.” “You’re hired—here’s your written job description and a formal offer letter.” This explains why, compared with European and Asian companies, American businesses tend to have more:

  •Organizational charts (showing on paper who works for whom)

  •Titles (describing exactly who is at what level)

  •Written objectives (explaining who is responsible for accomplishing what)

  •Performance appraisals (stating in writing how each person is doing)

  By contrast, many high-context cultures—particularly those of Asia and Africa—have a strong oral tradition in which written documentation is considered less necessary. The tendency to put everything in writing, which is a mark of professionalism and transparency in a low-context culture, may suggest to high-context colleagues that you don’t trust them to follow through on their verbal commitments.