Contact

During a course I conducted on multicultural negotiations, a young MBA student from Ukraine approached me during a break and said “Erin, you have been talking about the importance of cultural differences, but I have always believed that no matter where we come from, humans are fundamentally the same. Isn’t this true?”

Of course the answer to this question is yes and I answered as such. At a deep level, no matter where we come from, we are driven by common physiological and psychological needs and motivations. Yet the culture in which we grow up in has a significant bearing on the ways we see communication patterns as effective or undesirable, to find certain arguments persuasive or lacking merit, to consider certain ways of making decisions or measuring time “natural” or “strange”.

While leaders have always had to understand personality differences and manage how people interact with one another, as globalisation transforms the way we work we now need the ability to decode cultural differences in order to work effectively with clients, suppliers and colleagues around the world.

Mapping cultures

Olivier, a former student and vice president at automotive supplier Valeo, a French firm with big bases in Germany and Japan, and a growing presence in China, emailed me about his challenges working with colleagues across all four countries.

“When I moved to China, I thought the difficulty would be in bridging the cultural differences between Asians and Europeans. And it is true that the Asian members of my team are uncomfortable with the way our French and German members publicly disagree with them and give them negative feedback. I’ve coached the team members on how to moderate their approaches and reactions to work more effectively together.

“But to my surprise, the most serious difficulties we have on the team are between the Chinese and the Japanese. The Chinese gripe that the Japanese are slow to make decisions, inflexible, and unwilling to change. The Japanese complain that the Chinese don’t think things through, make rash decisions, and seem to thrive in chaos. Not only do these two Asian groups have difficulty working together, but the Japanese in many ways behave more like the Germans than like the Chinese—something I never anticipated.”

As I’ve outlined in my book, The Culture Map, Olivier should start addressing his problem by creating a culture map across eight scales I have identified that show how cultures vary from one extreme to its opposite. By analysing the position of one culture relative to another, the scales can help you decode how culture influences behaviour.

In this example, which I did for Olivier, you can see that on several scales, the Chinese and Japanese cluster together. As he’d experienced, the Chinese and Japanese are both uncomfortable with direct feedback and open disagreement. On the other hand, France and Germany cluster towards the other side.

However, when we look at deciding and scheduling, we’re able to identify the likely source of frustration for Olivier. Although Japan, like China is very hierarchical, it’s a consensual society where decisions are often made by the group in a bottom-up manner. That means decisions take longer, as input from everyone is gathered before decisions are made. By contrast, in China, decisions are most often made by the boss in a top-down fashion. Once the decision is made, there is a great rush towards the finish line.

Furthermore, the Japanese build plans and stick to them. Being organised and on time are values they share with their German colleagues and are rooted in culture. Germany, for example, was one of the first countries in the world to become heavily industrialised and it’s still a manufacturing-dominated economy. If a German factory worker turns up late for a shift, the cost is clear and calculable.

In comparison, the Chinese tend to make decisions quickly and change plans often, valuing flexibility and adaptability.

It comes down to awareness

The next step for Olivier, having identified his team’s differences on the map, is to increase the awareness of his team members about how culture impacts their effectiveness. He might start by organising a team gathering where these issues are discussed openly and good humouredly over a dinner. Just as a fish doesn’t know it’s in water, people often find it difficult to see and recognise their own culture until they start comparing it with others.

At a higher level, he could organise his team so there is less cultural homogeneity at each location by having Germans, French and Chinese all living and working together in Japan. He could also rotate his team members when possible, so they all spend a few months or even years in another location. Another valuable step could be hiring people who are bi-cultural or have extensive experience living in more than one culture.

While sometimes cultural diversity on global teams creates fault lines, at other times the same level of diversity can be a great advantage. A project with lots of tight deadlines might be better off with people on your team who have strong linear-time preferences. If you have a client who is constantly changing their mind and serving him or her well requires flexibility, having team members who are flexible with time will help meet their needs. Having people with a frank feedback style are invaluable, but at other times, you might need a small group of people to give negative feedback to a sensitive and valued client. Here is an opportunity to call on those who are pros at indirect negative feedback.

When you look at your team, consider not just the difficulties that might arise from the gaps but also the strengths that the differences provide. Managed with care, cultural diversity can become your team’s greatest asset.

Fortunately, the plane was able to glide far enough and make a safe landing at a nearby airport. Moody’s announcement has since been widely hailed as a classic example of British understatement and it demonstrates one of the ways the British commonly give negative feedback. More direct cultures use what linguists call “upgraders”, words preceding or following negative feedback that makes it feel stronger, such as “absolutely” or “totally”.

By contrast, more indirect cultures, such as the British, use more “downgraders”, words that soften the criticism, such as “kind of”, “sort of” and “a little bit”.

No laughing matter

But this can create confusion with people from other cultures. Marcus Klopfer, a German finance director, learned the hard way. A soft-spoken manager in his forties, Klopfer described how his failure to decode a message from his British boss almost cost him his job.

“In Germany, we typically use strong words when giving negative feedback or criticising in order to make sure the message registers clearly. During a one-on-one, my British boss “suggested that I think about” doing something differently. So I took his suggestion. I thought about it and decided not to do it. Little did I know that his phrase was supposed to be interpreted as, “change your behaviour right away or else”. And I can tell you, I was pretty surprised when he called me into his office to chew me out for insubordination.”

Klopfer subsequently learned to analyse messages by ignoring the downgraders and focusing his attention on the raw message in the middle. He also considered how his British staff might interpret his messages, which he had been delivering without any softeners at all. Now Klopfer makes an effort to soften the message when giving negative feedback to British counterparts. “I try to start by sprinkling the ground with a few light positive comments and words of appreciation. Then I ease into the feedback with “a few small suggestions,” he said.

It’s possible to be too honest

Should Klopfer’s boss have adapted his style to be more direct in order to assure his German team member received the message clearly? There is one rule for working with cultures that are more direct than yours: don’t try to do it like them. Even in direct cultures, it is possible to be too direct and if you try to switch to their style you risk making things worse.

Kwang Young-Su, a Korean manager who had been working in the Netherlands for six years, made this mistake. Young-Su explained; “The Dutch culture is very direct, and we Koreans do not like to give direct negative feedback. So when I first came to the Netherlands, I was shocked at how rude and arrogant the Dutch are with their criticism. When they don’t like something, they tell you bluntly to your face. I spoke to another Korean friend who has been in the Netherlands for a while, and he told me that the only way to handle this is to give it right back to them. Now I try to be just as blunt with them as they are with me.” Kwang’s Dutch colleagues later complained that they found him so aggressive and angry that they were practically unable to work with him.

Mixing the positive with the negative

When giving negative feedback consider not only how many upgraders or downgraders you are using, but also whether to wrap positive feedback around negative feedback. Although Americans are stereotyped around the world for their directness, if you give negative feedback in the U.S. by launching into the criticism (as would be common in countries like Russia), you may find that your American counterpart is anything but receptive. You’ll have better luck if you explicitly state something that you appreciate about the person or the situation before moving onto what you’d like that person to do differently. In addition, try over time to be balanced in the amount of positive and negative feedback you give. If you notice something positive your colleague has done, say it there and then, with explicit appreciation. Then, if you need to criticise them later, your comments are more likely to be heard and considered rather than rejected out-of-hand.

Above all, think about the norms of the culture you are working with, and consider how that might impact the way your criticism is received. Reactions and preferred styles differ dramatically from one society to another. The Thai manager has been taught never to criticise a colleague openly or in front of others, while the Dutch manager has learned always to be honest and to give the message straight. Americans are trained to wrap positive messages around negative ones, while the French are used to criticising passionately and providing positive feedback sparingly.

With a little focus and practice, you can learn to adapt your style to numerous world cultures and get the results you are hoping for.
Read more at http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/giving-negative-feedback-across-cultures-4259#Tm2wh0kq5F3BbAOU.99

“I prepared my presentation tirelessly,” she recalls. “I spent all thirteen hours of the plane ride from Shanghai rehearsing each slide so my points would be convincing.”

There were 12 people in the meeting and Shen was the only non-European in the room. Her ideas were prepared and meticulous but she was taken aback by the challenges thrown at her by her French colleagues. They started by questioning why she had chosen to change a specific colour in a print ad. As she was explaining, other members of the group began to challenge her other decisions. Shen felt attacked and humiliated, mostly upset with herself. “They obviously did not feel I was the marketing expert I claimed to be,” she recalled.

When the meeting was over, Shen rushed for the exit, but before she could escape, she had a surprise. Several of the participants who had challenged her came up to congratulate her and tell her how polished and interesting her presentation was. “At that moment, I realised I was more Chinese than I thought,” she said.

Facing up to culture

The reason for Shen’s initial feeling of shock was the concept of mianzi or “face”. In Confucian societies like China, Korea and Japan, maintaining group harmony by saving face for all members is of the utmost importance. As Shen describes it, “In China, protecting another person’s face is more important than stating what you believe is correct.” Group harmony exists when everyone plays their prescribed role and reinforces the roles of others.

In contrast, as you will recall from my earlier blog on persuasion, the French and the Germans are taught from a young age to disagree openly. French students are taught to reason via thesis, antithesis and synthesis, building up one side of the argument, then the other, before coming to a conclusion.

I experienced a similar issue when working with a group of American and German executives from DaimlerChrysler in 2002. When I explained in a session that Americans are generally less direct with negative feedback than Germans, Dirk Firnhaber, one of the Germans, promptly disagreed and went on to cite several personal experiences as counterexamples. A second German colleague also joined in to support Firnhaber.

Afterwards, Ben Campbell, one of the American participants came up to me visibly frustrated. “I don’t get it,” he said. “The Germans signed up for this course. Why do they have to constantly disagree with you?” Ben turned to Dirk. “Is it cultural?” he wondered.

“I’ll think about it,” Dirk replied.

After lunch, Dirk was ready to share his thoughts.

“We have this word in German, Sachlichkeit, which is most closely translated in English as “objectivity.” We can separate someone’s opinions or idea from the person expressing the idea. When I say “I disagree,” I am debating Erin’s position, not disapproving of her.”

This exchange vividly demonstrates why the Germans, along with the French, Dutch and Danish are on the confrontational side of the disagreeing scale. On the other side stand the Chinese, and even more so, the Japanese, Thai and Indonesian.

The strategy for succeeding in these cultures goes back to my earlier post on trust, where I recommended taking the time to build a close and trusting relationship with colleagues or clients from other cultures, which should help to reduce the level of confrontation you experience.

Getting global teams to disagree agreeably

Here are some strategies that can help facilitate constructive disagreement if you lead a global team:

If you’re the boss, consider skipping the meeting. Depending on the cultures you’re dealing with, both your seniority and your age may impact the willingness of others to disagree openly. In Japan for example, disagreeing with someone with white hair or rank is taboo. Even asking another’s point of view can feel confrontational. Advance preparation could help your Japanese counterparts feel more comfortable sharing their opinions openly, giving them time to check with each other and prepare their responses.

Another strategy is to depersonalise disagreement by separating ideas from the people expressing them. Putting ideas on a board anonymously then debating them with the group can facilitate disagreement without risking relationships.

A third strategy is to conduct meetings before the main meeting, something especially important in East Asian cultures. You could also adjust your language, avoiding stronger-sounding opinions of ideas such as “absolutely” or “totally”. In confrontation-avoiding cultures, people are more likely to use words like “sort of” or “partially”.

Play Devil’s advocate

On the other hand, if you’re working with a culture more confrontational than your own, be careful about using stronger words than are natural to you. I would not recommend telling your French client “you are totally wrong”. Disagreement is expressed more in the German or French cultures but it is easy to overshoot.

And not all Western cultures are the same. Compared to China, or even more so Thailand, Americans are confrontational. However in comparison with the French, the Americans avoid confrontation putting a stronger value on harmony and equilibrium. Americans have developed a highly complex, multi-ethnic citizenry characterised by tolerant coexistence. “United we stand, divided we fall” is the basis for many social interactions in the United States.

My French husband Eric who lived for many years in the U.S. and the U.K. inadvertently created some awkward scenes in American meetings with his straightforward, French-style disagreements, so he devised a solution:

“Before expressing disagreement, I now always explain, ‘Let me play devil’s advocate so we can explore both sides. Most groups seem happy to do this as long as I am clear about what I am doing and why,” he says.

Sometimes, just a few words of explanation framing your behaviour can make all the difference in how your actions are perceived.
Read more at http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/the-most-productive-ways-to-disagree-across-cultures-3936#YctTUqK14jSzieV7.99

Karl Morel, an acquisitions expert from Nestlé, found himself in a challenging situation when he was negotiating a joint venture in China. Morel led a team to Shanghai to explore a venture with a company that made packaged Chinese delicacies. The initial meetings with eight Chinese executives had him baffled. Morel and his team tried to be friendly and transparent, providing all of the details the Chinese wanted. “But they were impenetrable and unwilling to budge on any of their demands,” Morel said.

After a frustrating week, Morel and his colleagues met with a Chinese business consultant to figure out how they should adjust their approach. “The consultant told us that our approach was wrong, that we were going too fast.” Morel reported. He said they weren’t going to get what they wanted from the Chinese executives until they developed guanxi with them.

Relationships first

Guanxi is a Chinese term used to describe relationships that may benefit both parties. As the consultant explained, to develop good guanxi, one must build trust from the heart. “Forget the deal for a while,” he said. “Open up personally. Make a friend. A real one.”

Morel took the consultant’s advice, inviting his Chinese counterparts out for dinner, and including people from different levels of the company. There was live music and plenty of food from the Tianjin area of China, where the owner of the Chinese company was from. It was an excellent dinner, and there was plenty of socialising. The two groups toasted each other several times in a sign of mutual respect and emphasised their happiness at the prospect of a long-term relationship. After restarting the meetings the following Monday, the Chinese were much more willing to cooperate and the teams made excellent progress during their second week together.

Take a long lunch

I heard of a similar example when I worked recently with a group of executives from Gerdau, a Brazilian steelmaker. I learned the interesting backstory of one of the company’s acquisitions from Maria Morez in the Brazilian team and her American counterpart, Jim Powly. The acquisition was successful, but the path was challenging.

When the Brazilian team arrived in Jacksonville, Mississippi, Jim’s group gave them a warm welcome. “We got right down to business that morning,” Morez recounts; for three days the teams engaged in intense, sometimes difficult negotiations, ordering sandwiches for lunch and only taking short pauses throughout the day. At the end of two days, the Americans felt great about what they’d accomplished. They also felt that the short breaks and tight schedules were a sign of respect for the time their guests had taken out of their busy schedule to visit. But the Brazilians were less upbeat. “Despite having spent two days together, we didn’t know whether we could trust them.” explained Morez.

Powly continued the story, explaining that he brought the American team to Brazil to continue the discussions. Although the days were packed with meetings, lunches were long and dinners went well into the evening. This made the Americans uncomfortable. They worried if they’d have enough time to get everything finished and they even wondered if their Brazilian counterparts took the negotiations seriously.

For the Brazilians, the long lunches and dinners also showed respect for the Americans’ time. “This is supposed to send a clear message”, Morez explained: “Dear colleagues, who have come such a long distance to work with us, we would like to show you that we value you, and even if nothing else happens during these two days besides getting to know each other well, and developing a personal connection, we will have made good use of our time together.” Morez and Powly managed to complete their deal but a sense of discomfort persisted.

The two forms of trust

There are two basic types of trust: cognitive trust and affective trust. Cognitive trust is based on the confidence you feel in another person’s accomplishments, skills and reliability. This is trust from the head. Affective trust on the other hand, arises from feelings of emotional closeness, empathy or friendship. This type of trust comes from the heart. In all cultures, the trust you feel for a parent or spouse is likely to be an affective trust. But when it comes to business, cultural differences are significant.

In cultures that are more “task-based,” such as the U.S., Denmark, Germany, Australia and the U.K., business people are much more likely to develop work bonds based largely on cognitive trust. In China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, trust is “relationship-based” and is built through developing a personal bond. In the business world of those cultures, cognitive and affective trust aren’t separate but are woven together.

For those from task-based societies who are working with relationship-based counterparts, a few key rules to remember are:

Put more time and effort into organising meals or social events to be shared.
During those engagements, drop talks about work. Laugh together, and make friends.
Beyond meals, make all efforts to find time to let your guard down with those you’d like to build trust with, and to build up personal bonds.
Those from relationship-based societies who are working with task-based counterparts should keep the following points in mind:

Don’t throw out socialising altogether. Go ahead and organise a lunch but if it is likely to stretch to ninety minutes or longer, prepare your colleagues in advance.
Feel free to set up evening dinner or drinks, but if your counterparts leave early to rest or catch up on work, don’t take offence.
Recognise that a personal bond might help, but the business is more likely to come with cognitive proof of a high-quality product.
There is a very clear, practical benefit to investing in affective relationship-building, especially in emerging markets. Very often the relationship is, in itself, the business contract, so it is important to join the crowd and show your true self to feel a personal bond. In these cultures, trust is like an insurance policy: – it’s an investment you need to make up front, before the need arises.
Read more at http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/building-trust-across-cultures-3844#OpBPDsXeXP2b3Dc3.99

For Steve Henning, raised in egalitarian Australia, the answer was clear. The best boss is just one of the guys:

At home I was a near-full-time bicycle commuter. I’m a senior vice president and my Australian staff thought it was great that I rode a bike to work like many of them did. So I decided to bring my bicycle with me when I was assigned to a new job in China.

Unfortunately, Henning’s decision backfired:

My team was humiliated that their boss rode a bike to work like a common person. There are plenty of bikes on the road here but they are not carrying vice presidents. The team felt my actions suggested to the company that their boss was unimportant, and that they, by association, were also unimportant.

In today’s global economy you might be an Australian leading a team in China, a Russian courting clients in Brazil, or a German acquiring a company in India. The ideal “power distance” between the boss and his staff is deeply woven into the education system and family structure of each society. If you’re the boss it’s particularly important to understand what to expect from the culture you are working with.

When Joseph Alabi moved from Nigeria to Denmark, he was taken aback by the way his Danish staff spoke to him. Everyone — from the secretary to guys on the shop floor — used his first name and didn’t hesitate to contradict him in meetings. As he pointed out:

In the part of Nigeria I come from, we are taught to show the utmost respect to anyone above us in the hierarchy. When an older brother asks his little brother to fetch him water, the little brother does as told or suffers the wrath of his mother. When a grandparent arrives, he gets down on his knees in order to greet him. At work, you wouldn’t dare call your boss by his first name, let alone challenge him in public or in some other way insult his position in society.

At first he took things personally, but gradually Joseph realized that the Danes simply show their respect very differently from Nigerians:

The Danes have something called “the Law Of Jante”, which is a set of extremely egalitarian principles. Do not think you are better than others. Do not think you are smarter than others. Do not think you are more important than others. These and the other Jante rules are part of the way the Danes live. Hierarchy is almost entirely absent in this society. Children call the teacher by his first name. Young children challenge elders without hesitation. And the boss really is treated like he is just one of the team — a sort of facilitator among equals.

For anyone working globally, the nuances of hierarchy can be complicated. It is no longer enough to know how to lead the Australian, Chinese, Nigerian, or Danish way. You have to know how to manage up and down the cultural spectrum, and be flexible enough to adapt your style to the culture at hand. Here are a few pointers to get you started.

In an egalitarian culture:
It’s okay to disagree with the boss openly, even in front of others.
People are more likely to move to action without getting the boss’s approval.
In a meeting with a client or supplier, it is not important to match hierarchical levels.
It’s acceptable to e-mail or call people several levels below or above you.
With clients or partners, expect to be seated and spoken to in no specific order.
In a hierarchical culture:

People will defer to the boss’s opinion, especially in public.
People are likely to get the boss’s approval before acting.
If your boss plans to attend a meeting, your suppliers or clients will send their boss. If your boss cancels, their boss will likely not come.
Expect communication to follow the hierarchical chain; people correspond with others on their own level.
With clients or partners, you are likely to be seated and spoken to in order of position.
After several years in China, Steve Henning reflected on his experience:

I soon got rid of the bike, and stopped asking everyone to call me by my first name (Mr. Steve was our compromise!). I abandoned early strategies to make their culture more like my own, like implementing an open-floor seating plan. My team no more wanted me seated in a cubicle [than] riding a bike.

He came to not only adapt to this new culture, but to also see that it had its advantages:

When I was managing in Australia, every idea had to be hashed out at each level. Hours and hours were lost trying to create buy-in. When I first started working in China, I felt frustrated that my staff wouldn’t challenge my ideas. But I have developed a very close relationship with them over the past six years — almost a father-son connection. And I have come to love managing in China. There is great beauty in giving a clear instruction and watching your competent and enthusiastic team jump right in and attack the project at hand without pushback.

It’s natural for us to experience our own way of doing things as normal. But as we gain cross-cultural experience, we begin to see that every style has its advantages and disadvantages. And over time, a leader can start to smooth over the cultural gaps in team interactions, while capitalizing on the assets each cultural group brings. The more global the team, the greater the potential for misunderstanding… but also the greater the opportunity for the experienced leader to achieve success. This is the true value of leading in the global economy — getting the best of all worlds.

I was initially delighted with the prospect of working with an inclusive boss, who listened carefully to his staff and weighed everyone’s views before making a decision. But after my first few weeks, the emails had started mounting up. One morning, this message arrived:

Hey team,

I thought we should meet for an annual face-to-face on December 6th. We could focus the meeting on how to be more client-centric. What do you think?

Per

Our firm was a small consultancy with more work than we could handle and my colleagues, mainly energetic young Swedes, worked long hours to meet targets and keep our clients happy. I didn’t feel I had much of an opinion on Per’s question, so my automatic response was to hit the delete button and get back to work. But in the hours that followed, my Swedish colleagues began sending their responses, adding suggestions and views on what to focus on. Occasionally Per would inject an email with a few comments. Slowly, they began to reach agreement. I then got an individual email:

Hi Erin,

Haven’t heard from you, what do you think?

Per

I really wanted to respond by saying, “I have absolutely no opinion, please make a decision so we can get back to work.” But remembering how delighted I felt when Per had told me that he favoured consensual decision-making, I simply replied that I supported whatever the group decided.

As the weeks went on, many other topics got the same treatment and I realised my first impression of this style of working was not at all how I liked to work. I now understood why Per felt he had to explain this consensual approach to me. He later described how it feels to be Swedish working with Americans, who are “too busy to be good team members” and “always trying to impose a decision for decision’s sake without soliciting feedback”.

As with all cultural characteristics, these differing styles of decision-making have historical roots. American pioneers, many of whom had fled the formal hierarchical structures of their homelands, put emphasis on speed and individualism. The successful pioneers were those who arrived first and worked hard, regarding mistakes as an inevitable side-effect of speed. Americans therefore, naturally developed a dislike for too much discussion, preferring to make decisions quickly.

In a culture like that of the United States, the decision-making responsibility is invested largely in an individual. Decisions tend to be made quickly, early in the process, by one person. But each decision is also flexible—a decision, as I put it, with lowercase d. As more discussions occur, new information arises, or differing opinions surface and decisions may be easily revisited or altered. So plans are subject to continual revision—which means that implementation can take quite a long time.

In a consensual culture, it is the decision-making that may take a long time, since everyone is consulted. But once the decision is made, the implementation is rapid, since everyone is on board. And once the decision is made, it is fixed. Once the group makes a choice, the decision is unlikely to change. A decision with a capital D, one might say. A good example of this phenomenon is the Japanese ringi decision-making process, a very consensual decision-making protocol.

Jack Sheldon, a British executive who attended a seminar that I ran for Astellas, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, shared stories about his mishaps while trying to work with Tokyo-based managers. Following a problem with a particular product, a decision had to be made regarding whether to discontinue its development. Sheldon was invited to Tokyo to give his view, which was strongly that testing should continue.

“One of the Japanese managers gave an opening presentation, and during his speech he presented an argument followed by conclusions for why the testing should stop. I sensed that the others were in agreement with his comments. In fact, it seemed that the decision had already been finalised within the group. I presented my slides still feeling that my point of view would win out. But although people were still very polite, it was clear that the Japanese managers were 100 percent aligned against continued testing. I gave all of my arguments and presented all of the facts, but the group wouldn’t budge.”

What Sheldon hadn’t understood was that before Japanese company members sign off on a proposal, consensus building starts with informal, face-to-face discussions. This process of informally making a proposal, getting input, and solidifying support is called nemawashi. Literally meaning “root-binding”, nemawashi is a gardening term that refers to the process of preparing the roots of a plant or tree for transplanting, which protects them from damage. Similarly, nemawashi protects a Japanese organisation from damage caused by disagreement or lack of commitment and follow-through. At Astellas, the ringi process is even managed by a dedicated software programme.

Both consensual and unilateral styles of decision-making can be effective, but members of a global team generally have expectations about decision-making based on their own cultural norms. This can make clashes difficult to understand and manage. If you find yourself working with a team more familiar with consensual decision-making, try applying the following strategies:

1) Expect the decision-making process to take longer and involve more meetings and correspondence
2) Be patient, even when opinions diverge
3) Check in with your counterparts regularly to show your commitment
4) Cultivate informal contacts within the team to monitor the progress of decision-making
5) Resist the temptation to push for a quick decision

On the other hand, if you are working with a group of people who favour a more individualist approach to decision-making, these techniques might be useful:

1) Expect decisions to be made by one person (often the boss) with less discussion
2) Be ready to follow a decision that does not include your input
3) If you are in charge, solicit input but strive to make decisions quickly
4) When the group is divided, suggest a vote
5) Remain flexible, decisions are rarely set in stone

If your team includes members from both a consensual and unilateral decision-making culture, problems could be avoided by explicitly discussing and agreeing upon a decision-making method during the early stages of collaboration. Consider defining the parameters of the ultimate decision: whether it should be by vote or by the boss; whether 100 percent agreement is needed; and how open the group will be to later changes. The more those on both sides of the cultural divide talk to each other, the more natural it becomes to adjust to one another.

The day of the session, my actions were guided by the lessons I had learned from many successful years of training in the U.S. I started by getting right to the point, introducing strategies, practical examples, and next steps.

But the group did not seem to be responding as usual, and soon the first hand came up. “How did you get to these conclusions?” You are giving us your tools and recommended actions, but I haven’t heard enough about how you got here. How many people did you poll? What questions did you ask?” Then another jumped in: “Please explain what methodology you used for analyzing your data and how that led you to come to these findings”.

The interruptions seemed out of place, even arrogant. Why, I wondered, did they feel the need to challenge my credibility? The material was practical, actionable and interesting. Their questions on the other hand — if I were to spend the necessary time answering them — were so conceptual they were sure to send the group into a deep slumber. So I assured them that the methodology behind the recommendations was sound, and was based on careful research, which I would be happy to discuss with them during a break. I then moved back to my conclusions, tools and practical examples. Let’s just say things got worse from there.

The stonewall I had run into was “principles-first reasoning” (sometimes referred to as deductive reasoning), which derives conclusions or facts from general principles or concepts. People from principles-first cultures, such as France, Spain, Germany, and Russia (to name just a few) most often seek to understand the “why” behind proposals or requests before they move to action.

But as an American, I had been immersed throughout my life in “applications-first reasoning” (sometimes referred to as inductive reasoning), in which general conclusions are reached based on a pattern of factual observations from the real world. Application-first cultures tend to focus less on the “why” and more on the “how.” Later, as I began to understand the differences between one culture and another in how to influence other people, I heard many examples of the way the typical American presentation style is viewed from a European perspective.

Jens Hupert, a German living in the United States for many years, explained his opposite experience during an interview. “In the U.S., when giving a talk to my American colleagues, I would start my presentation by laying the foundation for my conclusions, just like I had learned in Germany; setting the parameters; outlining my data and my methodology; and explaining my argument.” Jens was taken aback when his American boss told him, “In your next presentation, get right to the point. You lost their attention before you got to the important part.” In Hupert’s mind, “You cannot come to a conclusion without first defining the parameters.”

Most people are capable of practicing both principles-first and applications-first reasoning, but your habitual pattern of reasoning is heavily influenced by the kind of thinking emphasized in your culture’s education structure.

Different cultures have different systems for learning, in part because of the philosophers who influenced the approach to intellectual life in general. Although Aristotle, a Greek, is credited with articulating the applications-first thinking, it was British thinkers, including Roger Bacon in the 13th century and Francis Bacon in the 16th century, who popularized these methodologies. General conclusions are reached based on a pattern of actual observations in the real world.

For example, if you travel to my hometown in Minnesota in January, and you observe every visit that the temperature is considerably below zero, you will conclude that Minnesota winters are cold. You observe data from the real world, and you draw broader conclusions based on these empirical observations. Francis Bacon was British, but later, Americans with their pioneer mentality came to be even more applications-first than the British.

By contrast, philosophy on the European continent has been largely driven by principles-first approaches. In the 17th century, Frenchman René Descartes spelled out a method of principles-first reasoning in which the scientist first formulates a hypothesis and then seeks evidence to prove or disprove it.

For example, you may start with the general principle like “all men are mortal.” Then move to “Justin Bieber is a man.” And that leads you to conclude that “Justin Bieber will eventually die.” One starts with the general principle, and from that moves to a practical conclusion. In the 19th century, the German Friedrich Hegel introduced the dialectic model of deduction, which reigns supreme in schools in Latin and Germanic countries. The Hegelian dialectic begins with a thesis, or foundational argument; this is opposed by an antithesis, or conflicting argument; and the two are then reconciled in a synthesis.

No matter which type of country you were raised in, and which cultures you are working with, it helps a lot to be able to adapt your style according to your audience. Here are a few tips to guide your preparation when working internationally:

When working with applications-first people:

Presentations: Make your arguments effectively by getting right to the point. Stick to concrete examples, tools and next steps. Spend relatively little time building up the theory or concept behind your arguments. You’ll need less time for conceptual debate.
Persuading others: Provide practical examples of how it worked elsewhere.
Providing Instructions: Focus on the how more than the why.
When working with principles-first people:

Presentations: Make your argument effectively by explaining and validating the concept underlying your reasoning before coming to conclusions and examples. Leave enough time for challenge and debate of the underlying concepts. Training sessions may take longer.
Persuading others: Provide background principles and welcome debate.
Providing Instructions: Explain why, not just how.
These days, I give a lot of presentations to groups across Europe and the Americas. I do my best to adapt to my audience, instead of thinking that the whole world thinks like me.

If I’m presenting to a group of New Yorkers, I’ll only spend a moment talking about what research is behind the tool. But if I’m in Moscow, I’ll carefully set the stage, laying out the parameters for my arguments, and engaging in debate before arriving at conclusions. If I fail to do this, they are likely to think “What does this woman think. . . . that we are stupid ? That we will just swallow anything?”

When you hope to engage, when you hope to inform and persuade and convince, what you say is important, but how you say it, how you structure your message, can make all the difference — to the Americans, to the French, to everyone.