Cultural differences in leading styles, according to Professor André Lauren, are hugely affected by the history of the country/region. For example, the history of France shows the influences of the Roman Empire’s hierarchical structures and central political standing. On the other hand, hierarchical structures leading in countries such as Sweden are seen due to the impact of the Vikings. 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.) Chapter 5 – Deciding: Making decisions is a critical component of running a business. In this chapter, the author describes “Consensual” cultures as those where “decisions are made in groups through unanimous agreement” and “Top-Down” cultures as those where “decisions are made by individuals (usually the boss).” As you can imagine there is a speed of decision issue that rises with the former. She points out that “these differing styles of decision making have a dramatic impact on the timeline of a typical project.” This is something to consider if you are making project-based decisions in a consensus-based culture.

Flexible-time such as cultures such as in Vietnam, Indian, Mexican, Saudi Arabia usually appear as unorganized and chaotic in the eye of the linear-time observer in the UK, Japan, or the US. On the contrary, an Indian or a Saudi would view the British culture as inflexible and incapable to adapt to sudden changes. 8. Persuading: Principles first vs. applications first Thinking: Meyer divides how cultures think into two categories: holistic (or dialectical) and specific (or analytical). 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 cultures that think analytically, people tend to focus on the individual element or action. Unlike dialectical cultures, they de-emphasize the surrounding circumstances. Our servers are getting hit pretty hard right now. To continue shopping, enter the characters as they are shown I wouldn't go on and summarise all 8 aspects, of course. I recommend you read the book, but let me mention some things I notices.Leadership Journeys [132] – Josh Staph –“A good leader knows what questions to ask and what questions need to be answered” High task-based scale – In countries such as the US and the Netherlands, the trust factor is created by achievements in business relations and profits. Such trust can be forged as well as dissolved easily. Or as Erin Meyer puts it: "In an egalitarian culture, for example, an aura of authority is more likely to come from acting like one of the team, while in a hierarchical culture, an aura of authority tends to come from setting yourself clearly apart." 6. Are you a friend or a coworker? In certain societies, open confrontation is encouraged and appropriate and will not impact the relationship in a negative way. These societies include France, Germany, the Netherlands or Israel. People here perceive an argument more like a sparring exercise, but not a real fight. They often use disagreement as a way to learn more and further explore varying ideas face. For an individual or a group to maintain social harmony, under no circumstances can anyone lose face. This is an excellent article. It gives a close snapshot of the framework designed by Erin Meyer in simple wording. I am working on a school assignment. I wonder if you could let me use the image depicting the 8 scales of the framework i.e. Culture A and Culture B.

When a line needs to be formed some people surround the goalpost and people accumulate behind them. When the lines look too long, people start their own by standing beside the other lines. Summary of The Culture Map Erin Meyer brings an example from his childhood on how active listening is encouraged even in a low-context culture like the US: "Mom used to coach us in active listening: You speak to me as clearly and explicitly as possible. Then I'll repeat what I understood you to say as clearly and explicitly as I can.Trust in any business relationship is vital for success, irrespective of the cultural context that affects it. That said, an effective high relationship-based trust works with all cultures. It is therefore a better form of trust to build than high task-based that works only with a few cultures. Scale 7 – The Disagreeing Scale 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 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. On the other hand, people from coconut cultures are starting with less welcoming gestures. They rarely smile at unknown people, don't chitchat, and barely ask or answer questions about their personal lives. Chapter 1 – Communicating: Low-Context cultures communicate precisely, simply, and clearly. The communication is taken at face value and in some cases, repetition is appreciated, especially if it helps clarify communication. High-Context cultures, on the other hand, are cultures where communication is more sophisticated, nuanced, and layered. For these cultures, you may have to read between the lines as messages may be implied. Leadership Journeys [127] – Kirk Byles –“My inquisitiveness has been the most advantageous for my career”HBR's 10 Must Reads on Negotiation (with bonus article "15 Rules for Negotiating a Job Offer" by Deepak Malhotra) 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. For this last category, we did not use it when comparing the aforementioned cultures however it is important when presenting your ideas. Meyer divides trust-building methods into two extremes: task-based, which we’ll call cognitive, and relationship-based, which we’ll call personal. High-context: Communication is nuanced and has multiple layers. Messages are signaled but often are not explicitly written or said out loud. This type of communication requires "reading between the lines". (for example Japan)