"The Culture Map" by Erin Meyer - Part 1

In an increasingly interconnected world, we find ourselves working, studying, and interacting with people from diverse cultural backgrounds more than ever before. While this exposure brings opportunities for collaboration and learning, it can also lead to misunderstandings if we fail to recognize and adapt to different communication styles, leadership expectations, and ways of thinking.

Erin Meyer, a professor at INSEAD Business School, explores these differences in The Culture Map, a book that provides a structured way to navigate cultural variations in professional and social settings. By understanding these dimensions, we can improve our ability to collaborate across borders, communicate more effectively, and avoid unnecessary conflicts.

This post will explore four key dimensions from Meyer’s book: communicating, evaluating, persuading, and leading. Each section will break down the core concepts and offer insights on how to work more effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds.

Communicating: High-Context vs. Low-Context Cultures

Cultures can be categorized based on how much context is needed to understand communication. Some cultures rely heavily on explicit information, while others expect the listener to infer meaning from indirect cues, shared experiences, and unspoken rules.

In low-context cultures, such as the United States, communication is explicit, direct, and transparent. People state their thoughts clearly, using repetition and summaries to ensure that everyone understands. Clarity is valued above subtlety, and speakers do not assume that listeners share their background knowledge. This is why Americans, for example, tend to appreciate written follow-ups, detailed agendas, and clearly stated expectations in professional settings.

In high-context cultures, such as Japan, much of the communication is implicit. The listener is expected to read between the lines and interpret the meaning beyond what is being said. These cultures emphasize group harmony, and direct statements may be avoided to prevent conflict or embarrassment. In professional settings, people rely on shared understanding rather than explicit instructions, and excessive clarification can be seen as unnecessary or even intrusive.

Brazilian Portuguese falls somewhere between these two extremes, though it leans toward the high-context side. In fact, the language itself reflects this tendency. Brazilians often use the term subentendido, meaning “implied” or “understood without being said,” which captures the cultural preference for indirect communication.

Bridging the Communication Gap

When working with someone from a high-context culture, asking open-ended questions can help uncover unspoken assumptions. Since people from these cultures may avoid directly saying “no,” it’s useful to phrase questions carefully to encourage clear answers. For example, instead of asking, “Do you understand?”, a better approach might be, “What steps would you take to complete this project?”

Conversely, when working with people from a low-context culture, it is important to be as explicit as possible. Summarizing key points and confirming understanding at the end of discussions ensures that no critical information is lost. Additionally, those from high-context cultures should try to avoid assuming that their audience will pick up on unspoken cues.

In multicultural teams, misunderstandings are most likely to occur between two high-context cultures that have different assumptions. For example, a Brazilian and a Chinese professional may both rely on indirect communication, but their cultural backgrounds shape different expectations about what is implied. To avoid miscommunication, multicultural teams often benefit from adopting low-context processes, such as clearly documented procedures and direct communication guidelines.

Evaluating: Direct vs. Indirect Feedback

Feedback delivery varies significantly across cultures, and it does not always align with a culture’s general communication style. Some cultures that are otherwise indirect in communication can be surprisingly blunt when delivering criticism, while others prefer a softer, more diplomatic approach.

In cultures such as the United States and the United Kingdom, negative feedback tends to be indirect. The preferred method is to use the “feedback sandwich,” where criticism is surrounded by positive comments to soften the impact. Americans, in particular, use downgraders—softening words such as “a bit of a problem” or “somewhat difficult”—to make criticism more palatable.

By contrast, in Germany and the Netherlands, negative feedback is often delivered in a straightforward manner. Honesty is valued over diplomacy, and there is little need to sugarcoat criticism. This can sometimes lead to misunderstandings when individuals from indirect cultures perceive direct feedback as harsh or rude.

In high-context cultures such as Brazil and Japan, negative feedback is typically given in private and phrased in a way that preserves the recipient’s dignity. Even when using downgraders, Brazilians tend to avoid direct criticism, as being singled out in front of others can be embarrassing.

In Japan and other East Asian cultures, feedback is often delivered subtly, sometimes without mentioning the negative aspect at all. For example, if a manager only comments on two out of four completed reports, the employee understands that the other two were substandard without needing explicit criticism. An exception to this is possible when authority is involved: bosses and other people in higher hierarchical standing may deliver criticism quite harshly and openly. According to Erin, this seems to be the case every time we have a culture that combines indirect negative feedback with high power distance (which we will talk about soon).

Adapting to Different Feedback Styles

When working with individuals from indirect cultures, it is important to read between the lines and pay attention to what is left unsaid. Direct feedback should be softened, and criticism should be given in a private setting to maintain harmony. On the other hand, when providing feedback to someone from a direct culture, it is best to be clear and concise. They are less likely to interpret blunt criticism as personal and more likely to see it as constructive.

Persuading: Principle-First vs. Application-First Thinking

Different cultures also vary in how they approach persuasion and decision-making. In principle-first cultures, such as France and Germany, arguments are structured by first explaining the theoretical reasoning behind a decision before moving to practical applications. These cultures emphasize deductive reasoning, meaning they prefer to start with abstract concepts before getting into details.

By contrast, application-first cultures, such as the United States and Canada, focus on practicality. People from these cultures expect the main point to be presented upfront, followed by supporting evidence. They use inductive reasoning, which means they start with concrete examples before generalizing broader principles.

Asian cultures tend to follow a different approach altogether, favoring holistic thinking. Rather than focusing on a single problem, they consider all surrounding factors and interdependencies. Meyer recounts a study where Americans and Japanese participants were asked to describe images. While Americans focused on the main subject of the image, the Japanese participants described the background and surrounding context, highlighting their holistic perspective.

Navigating Different Persuasion Styles

Mismatches in persuasion styles can lead to frustration. A French executive might craft a carefully structured argument, only to find that his American colleagues skim past the theoretical foundation and focus on the conclusion. Likewise, an American businesswoman might prepare a list of practical recommendations, only to have her German counterparts question the reasoning behind her conclusions.

When working with principle-first cultures, taking time to build a solid theoretical foundation before discussing practical steps is important. Conversely, when working with application-first cultures, getting to the point quickly and providing clear action steps will be more effective.

Leading: Hierarchical vs. Egalitarian Cultures

This chapter’s content is in great part informed by Hoftede’s Cultural Dimensions of Power Distance, and the authors own research as well. Although Hoftede’s original work made a distinction between High and Low Power Distance cultures, Meyer has chosen to refer to these extremes as hierarchical and egalitarian, respectively.

Leadership expectations are also shaped by culture. In egalitarian cultures, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, leaders are seen as equals and are expected to be approachable. Employees are encouraged to challenge authority and make independent decisions. In hierarchical cultures, such as China and Brazil, leaders are expected to provide clear direction, and employees show deference to authority.

Curiously, Erin says that if you ask people around the world, they will say they prefer an egalitarian leadership, but that is not always really the case. A truly egalitarian style results in a culture in which a good leader is someone who can present as “just one of us”, someone who allows groups to challenge and push back on their decisions, who allows others to arrive at their own conclusions and act with a high degree of autonomy. On the other hand, in a hierarchical context, people might not openly disagree with their boss, rigidly follow the hierarchical chain in communications, be seated according to their rank in an event, and will ask for permission before moving forward with most actions. 

Leadership in Multicultural Settings

Understanding these expectations is crucial for effective leadership in international settings. For example, a hierarchical team might struggle with an overly informal leader, while an egalitarian team may expect more autonomy than a hierarchical leader is comfortable granting.

Erin says that most humans are flexible, and that when expectations are clearly communicated, most misunderstandings can be resolved. The problem only persists when each party insists that the other is wrong. 

***

Since this book is quite long and there are still four other dimensions to go through, I will divide this into a two-part series. I will probably intersperse these posts with other topics that I wish to cover as well, but please let me know in the comments if you want me write about them right away, and I will. I highly recommend this book as it was a very fun read and I believe anyone who has had multicultural experiences will find it very interesting.

Reference:

MEYER, E. The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. New York: PublicAffairs, 2016.