After reading Erin Meyer’s book “The Culture Map” – an eye opener about the differences between cultures and how they can have significant impact on organisation’s performance when relying on multi-cultural teams – I could not help asking myself what type of organisational culture would be best suited in such context. Intuitively, I considered a collaborative culture to be well adapted for effective multi-cultural projects and operations. I therefore decided to assess how a collaborative culture fares at alleviating the potentially negative effect of cultural differences described by Erin. Before doing this, I first need to define what a collaborative culture typically looks like.
A collaborative culture demands the following:
- Ø Transparency and honesty
- Ø Nurtured individual excellence
- Ø Trust and Respect (for everyone’s opinion/ideas)
- Ø Frequent feedback
- Ø Clear – unambiguous - communication
- Ø Inclusion and diversity
- Ø Clear roles & responsibilities, especially for the ‘D’ right
- Ø No knowledge silos
- Ø Communication independent of hierarchy as the norm
- Ø Knowledge-driven and result-oriented.
I will not expand on this here as it is not the
subject. There are numerous books (*) about
the value of collaboration in an organisation and how to foster it. I have myself also written many articles on
this topic on this blog.
HIGH OR LOW CONTEXT
<<In low context cultures, effective communication
must be simple, clear, and explicit>> (p.34). In a high context culture [like Japan, India,
China] people learn a very different style of communication as children – one that
depends on unconscious assumptions about common reference points and shared
knowledge>> (p. 35).
Erin writes that <<Multicultural teams need low
context processes>> (p.55). That
is because <<high context communication works beautifully when we are
from the same culture and interpret cultural cues the same way.>>
A collaboration culture demands clear and unambiguous
communication which is exactly what low context communication is.
EVALUATING
Cultures can be differentiated in how direct or Indirect
negative feedback is given, or how frank one can be when telling someone that
they can/should do better.
As a collaborative culture in an organisation implies a high
degree of trust and respect between employees, direct constructive criticism is
not only expected but even welcome. The
purpose of this criticism is to learn and improve, not to blame and punish. In a multicultural setting, providing
feedback in a respectful manner is key however -another characteristic of a
collaborative culture - as the majority of cultures are more accustomed to
indirect feedback.
PERSUADING
There are two styles of reasoning: Principles-first or applications-first.
In the first, one <<derives conclusions or facts from general
principles or concepts>>. In
the second, <<general conclusions are reached based on a pattern of
factual observations from the real world>> (p. 93).
In business context, people from principle-first cultures
generally want to understand the ‘why’ behind a request before moving into
action. People from application-first cultures
focus less on the ‘why’ but more on the ‘how’.
A collaborative culture does not favour one style of
reasoning over the other. Collaboration
however can be hindered when different styles are used and expected in a
multicultural team. Fortunately, respect
and direct feedback can go a long way at assisting with these situations. No matter which style the person trying to
persuade others is using, repetitive and constructive questioning from the
others will eventually bring everyone of the same page. Gradually, team members will get accustomed
with the style they are less familiar with.
Similarly, a collaborative culture does not favour a
specific or holistic approach to persuasion. Asian cultures tend to be much more holistic
versus Western cultures. Holistic
cultures consider the context first before honing on the details. Again, respect for everyone’s point of view
and differences, as well as welcoming direct feedback, will go a long way to
enable effective collaboration in a team with a mix of specific and holistic
cultural background.
LEADING
Cultures vary on a leadership scale from the most
egalitarian (e.g. Denmark or the Netherlands) to the most hierarchical (e.g.
Japan or Nigeria).
In an egalitarian culture, the best boss is a facilitator
instead of a director leading from the front.
Organizational structures are flat and communication frequently skips
hierarchical lines. Clearly, a collaborative
culture will be much more easily established in an organization located in a
country with an egalitarian culture.
In a global team with people from both egalitarian and
hierarchical cultural background, for the team to be effective it is important
to define clearly the rules of engagement and decision making, such as how much
the managers need to be involved.
People with hierarchical cultural background will adapt to a
more egalitarian working environment as long as rules are made clear, in
particular what can be done without the boss’s involvement.
In an organisation with a truly collaborative culture, communication
independent of hierarchy is encouraged and common practice. When the organisation operates with people
with multicultural backgrounds, successful leadership styles are the most
adaptive ones. The result-oriented
nature of a collaborative culture fosters a working environment with clear rules
of engagement between leaders and employees.
DECIDING
The deciding scale for cultures goes from the most
consensual to the most top-down.
Collaboration is often confused with consensus. It could not be further from the truth. If in a collaborative culture, everyone should
feel accountable to the shared outcome, varied opinions will be sought and
options often debated at length, only one individual will have the
responsibility to make the final decision.
However, unlike in a top-down hierarchical culture, the final decision
in a collaborative culture is not necessarily made by the most senior leader
but instead by the individual with the specific responsibility – often the one
with the most relevant knowledge/experience.
[In a] <<consensual culture, decisions are made in
groups through unanimous agreement.
[In a] top-down culture, decisions are made by individuals
(usually the boss).>> (p.150)
In a collaborative environment, decisions are made by
individuals after systematic consultations with the relevant individual(s)/team(s)
– relevance being knowledge-driven.
Therefore, a collaborative culture is well suited for cross-cultural
international teams.
TRUSTING
<<On the trusting scale, countries are rated from
high task-based to high relationship-based. [..]
Task-based: Trust is built through business-related
activities. Work relationships are built
and dropped easily, based on the practicality of the situation.
Relationship-based: Trust is built through sharing meals,
evening drinks, and visits at the coffee machine. Work relationships build up slowly over the
long term >> (p.171).
In a collaborative culture, trust is a given and paramount
and goes hand in hand with respect. It is about trusting that everyone is honestly
trying to act in the best interest of the group, and that everyone respects
others’ differences (opinions, habits, knowledge, skills, ideas, etc…).
In this context, it actually does not matter much how individuals reinforce that
de-facto trust between them. Whether it
is task-based or relationship-based, the collaborative environment they operate
in will facilitate the process.
DISAGREEING
The disagreeing scale goes from very confrontational to avoiding
confrontation.
<<[In a confrontational culture] disagreement and debate are positive
for the team or organization. Open confrontation is appropriate and will not negatively
impact the relationship.
[In a culture where avoiding confrontation is the norm] disagreement and
debate are negative for the team or organisation. Open confrontation is inappropriate and will
break group harmony or negatively impact the relationship>> (p.201).
Erin does state that when << [..] leading a
multicultural team, figuring out how to get all the group members to express
their ideas openly and comfortably may be a challenge >> (p210). The ones from non-confrontational cultures
will be reluctant to voice openly their disagreements to the leader, while the
ones from confrontational cultures will do so at the risk of creating tensions
and destabilising the team.
In a collaborative culture, communication and debate
independent of hierarchy is not only encouraged, it is the norm. Furthermore, as we’ve seen before, the
decision-maker is not necessarily the leader.
In such a context, everyone feel
safe to disagree but never in a confrontational manner, so group harmony and
relationship cannot be negatively affected.
A collaborative culture is therefore well-suited to accommodate teams
with people from both confrontational and non-confrontational backgrounds.
SCHEDULING
The scheduling scale goes from cultures with linear time to
cultures with flexible time.
<< [In a linear time culture,] project steps are approached in a
sequential fashion. [..] The focus is on the deadline and sticking to the
schedule. [..] organization [is valued] over flexibility.
[In a flexible time culture,] project steps are approached in a fluid manner,
changing tasks as opportunities arise. [..]
The focus is on adaptability and flexibility is valued over organization.
>>
In a collaborative environment, teams agree upfront on the
rules of engagement and the behavioural norms everyone is to expect from
everyone else. If for a particular
project, a linear time management is deemed required (as for conventional
waterfall project methodologies) then this is what will be adhered to. If on the other hand flexibility is deemed
more important (as with Agile methodologies) then everyone will have to agree
to this approach.
Even in a collaborative setting, you will still have the
German preferring to plan it all in advance or the Nigerian not bothered with a
lack of plan, expecting it all to change often (see p.233). But the key is that they should all come
together in a collectively agreed approach for dealing with time.
Against each of Erin Meyer’s 8 culture scales, a
collaborative culture seems to be well suited for a global organization with
numerous teams made up of people from very different cultural backgrounds. My brief assessment is by no mean extensive
and more detailed work should be done to confirm this view. It would be for instance interesting to study
several global organizations with different internal cultures and see how their
multicultural teams perform with respect to each of the culture scales.
