"The Culture Map" by Erin Meyer - Part 2

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 creates opportunities for collaboration and learning, it can also lead to misunderstandings if we fail to recognize and adapt to different communication styles, expectations, and ways of thinking.

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

This post will delve into the final four dimensions covered in Meyer’s book: Deciding, Trusting, Disagreeing, and Scheduling.

Deciding

Meyer begins this chapter by highlighting two surprising cultural contrasts: a hierarchical culture with a consensus-based decision-making process, as seen in Germany, and an egalitarian culture with a top-down decision-making approach, as in the United States. Typically, hierarchical cultures lean toward centralized decision-making, while egalitarian cultures favor collaborative discussions. However, these two cases break that pattern, often leading to misunderstandings when Germans and Americans work together. Americans tend to perceive Germans as slow decision-makers who resist change once a decision is made, while Germans view Americans as inconsistent and overly authoritative.

To navigate these differences, Meyer introduces the “Big D versus small d” distinction when working with international teams. A small d decision is tentative, flexible, and designed to keep things moving efficiently, which aligns with American preferences. In contrast, a Big D decision is fixed, long-term, and reached through extensive discussion, more in line with the German approach.

Cultural decision-making processes also vary in unique ways. In Japan, another hierarchical yet consensus-driven culture, the concept of nemawashi plays a key role. This refers to the practice of laying the groundwork for a decision through informal discussions before any formal agreement is made. In Japanese business settings, the most crucial time to influence an outcome is during these early discussions rather than in the final decision-making stage.

Trusting

One of the most insightful chapters in the book focuses on the nature of trust across cultures. Meyer differentiates between task-based and relationship-based trust. Task-based trust is built on competence, reliability, and consistent performance, while relationship-based trust develops through personal connections, shared experiences, and long-term rapport.

The United States and Germany are strong examples of task-based cultures, where trust is established primarily through professionalism and reliability. On the other end of the spectrum, countries such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China prioritize relationship-based trust, where deep personal bonds are necessary before doing business. Japan presents an interesting hybrid case; formal work interactions rely on task-based trust, but informal drinking sessions offer an opportunity for employees to reveal their honne, or true feelings, in a safe social setting.

When cultures from opposite ends of this spectrum interact, misunderstandings often arise. People from task-based cultures may find relationship-focused colleagues inefficient, while relationship-oriented individuals might perceive task-focused counterparts as cold or unfriendly.

Meyer also references the research of Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner to illustrate another aspect of trust-building using the "peach vs. coconut" analogy. Peach cultures, such as the United States, are soft and friendly on the outside, where people engage in small talk and personal questions early on. However, their inner core is harder to penetrate, meaning deep friendships take time to develop. In contrast, coconut cultures, such as Germany and Russia, have a tough exterior, where people appear reserved at first, but once a relationship is built, it is often strong and long-lasting.

Personally, this chapter provided valuable insights into my experiences in Brazil. I used to find the country’s immediate warmth and affection strange, as my Japanese background taught me that deep bonds take time to form. However, Meyer’s perspective helped me realize that cultural behaviors should not be judged by their outward appearance but by their function. A casual Brazilian “I love you, let’s meet for coffee!” should be interpreted much like a respectful Japanese bow —  an expression of goodwill rather than a deep declaration of affection.

Disagreeing

One of the book’s more surprising revelations is that emotional expressiveness and openness to disagreement do not always go hand in hand. Nordic and Germanic cultures, for example, may not be particularly expressive, but they engage in direct and passionate debates. Conversely, cultures like Brazil can be highly expressive yet still avoid open confrontation. Meyer explains that a culture’s attitude toward disagreement is influenced by whether relationships are expected to withstand conflict. In many European cultures, debating someone’s ideas is considered a sign of respect—after all, disagreement signals engagement and consideration of another’s perspective. Meanwhile, many Asian cultures, shaped by Confucian ideals of harmony, tend to avoid direct confrontation to maintain group cohesion.

To navigate these differences, Meyer suggests making intentions explicit. For instance, someone from a direct-speaking culture might preface their disagreement with a phrase like “Allow me to play devil’s advocate so we can explore the best solution together.” For those in harmony-focused cultures, softening language with phrases like “maybe” or “a little” can make opposing viewpoints more palatable. However, she cautions that adapting a direct style of confrontation should be done carefully, as cultural nuances determine whether frankness is seen as constructive or aggressive. She recounts the story of a Chinese colleague who attempted to be as blunt as Dutch students in debates, only to be perceived as overly forceful.

Scheduling

Cultural attitudes toward time vary from rigid to flexible. Time-rigid cultures, such as Germany, the United States, and Japan, value punctuality, structure, and precise scheduling. On the other hand, time-flexible cultures, including Brazil, India, and Nigeria, see time as fluid and adaptable to circumstances.

Meyer illustrates this with an anecdote about a Nigerian HR manager who struggled to coordinate with German colleagues. While the Germans wanted to schedule meetings six months in advance, the Nigerians couldn’t confirm availability that far ahead because public holidays were sometimes declared spontaneously by their government.

Even perceptions of punctuality differ. Americans expect meetings to start on time but tolerate slight delays. In Brazil, arriving exactly on time can be considered rude, as hosts may still be preparing. Meanwhile, in Japan, if someone arrives too early, but another person has already arrived before them, they may apologize for making the others wait. Whether rigidly respecting time is seen as a sign of professionalism or inflexibility depends entirely on cultural context.

Meyer advises that when working with teams from multiple cultures, it is best to openly discuss and agree on a shared scheduling system. Fortunately, she notes, adjusting to different time expectations is often easier than adapting to more deeply ingrained cultural values.

Conclusion

Meyer’s final message is a reminder that while we are all human, our cultural and personal experiences shape us in unique ways. When meeting someone from another culture, it is wise not to assume they embody every stereotype associated with their nationality. People have their own personalities, and their way of expressing cultural tendencies may differ significantly from general expectations.

Although cultural misunderstandings can sometimes lead to amusing or frustrating encounters, the true advantage of cultural awareness lies in the flexibility and expanded perspective it provides. Those who have deeply immersed themselves in different cultures often find that their world has grown larger and less constrained by the illusion of sameness. In an interconnected world, developing this cultural flexibility is more valuable than ever.

Reference:

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