Navigating intercultural communication is essential in a global business environment. This text explores key differences between explicit and implicit communication styles, trust-building in coconut vs. peach cultures, and the impact of high-context and low-context frameworks on task delegation, feedback, and conflict management.
Transcript
Welcome, everybody. My name is Michalina. I’m based in Poland. I’m an intercultural specialist, and I really enjoy intercultural differences. So I’m happy to co-deliver this workshop for you with John. John, could you share a few words about yourself?
Yeah. Hello. My name is John Scherer. I’ve been around the block a few times doing this work of organizational change, culture change, and leadership development. Misha and I have known each other since I first came to Poland 12 years ago. Misha and her husband Karol were two of the first people I met. So we have worked together for a long, long time. I really love working with you, Misha. I’m really glad to be with all of you folks from Booksy.
Thank you, John. So today, the goal is to give you some knowledge and insights on how cultures differ and how these differences are present in business. As you can see, there are two of us here, John and I. We’re going to share our own experiences, use some case studies, and John will also share his insights on how he perceives Polish culture as an American, what surprised him, and how he coped with that. My first question was, where are you located? But most of you have already shared this information. So, John, you will do the introduction on how to perceive another person in a way that can be insightful, not labeling. Right?
So you’re going to change my slides? Yep. Okay. Are we going to have a signal? Okay. What am I going to do, raise my finger? What’s the best way? Okay. So let’s assume, and you just imagine, that you’re delivering and you can hit the button whenever you think it would work. Let’s assume that this is a person over here from somewhere in Booksy or somewhere in your life. This is a model, by the way, that works anywhere and everywhere in the world. I came up with this around 1974 or 75, and I think it’s going to be really useful to you in your whole life. Here’s a person over here. Okay, there you go. And this person has a history, needs, wants, hopes, fears, and a whole life. In this moment, they have some kind of intention, which they then encode into words, actions, tone of voice, or non-action. Like not getting an email is an action. You understand what I’m saying? It’s not necessarily something that happens. It’s something that doesn’t happen. It might be an action, but something is encoded. Now, over here, there’s you on this other side. What happens when they encode it is something that you could see on a video, a calendar, or in the real world. Right. Then there’s you over here, and you’re actually decoding the action. You can’t see their intention. You don’t know where they’re coming from.
You, as you will see in a second, have a guess, a hypothesis, or a working theory, but it probably doesn’t live like a theory, as you’ll see in a minute. You’re actually decoding, and look at the direction of the arrow. This is extremely important. This model demonstrates that when we see something in the world, we’re not just passively receiving light stimuli to the brain that goes back into the neocortex, and then all of a sudden we’re seeing. We’re actually filtering what we see. As you’ll see in a minute, I think now is the time. If a carpet salesman walked into the room that you’re in right now, if you have a carpet, what would the carpet salesman notice immediately without even thinking about it? Size of the room, quality, cost, and so on. If an electrician walked into your room, what would they notice without even thinking about it? Lights, plugs, and so on. What might the electrician miss completely? See, the carpet. Right. So this is how we are. We’re walking around experiencing the world, but we’re filtering. We’re seeing what’s out there based on our own history. Okay. Hit it, Misha. We have our own history. We have our own needs. We have our own everything. This is what we end up making up about it. It’s our interpretation. They did not send me the email on Tuesday when I asked for it on Tuesday. What does that mean? We go out with them. We take the meaning to the action.
The action doesn’t come with a meaning attached. The action doesn’t come with an interpretation attached. We have to attach the meaning and attach the interpretation. That’s why the arrow goes that way. Extremely important. Okay, so what we end up with here is, because of what we have in our history, we make something up. This is our world. Then, over on the other side, there’s their world. And then there’s what happens, which actually happened in the world, which is just the facts. Now, what happens is where we get into trouble with each other, whether you’re in a relationship or between two departments or two countries, two levels—any two entities: parents, kids, whatever. There are these three worlds going on, and they’re happening all the time. So here’s where we need to go. Misha, do we have time for me to tell the Diane story or not? Yeah? Okay, good. So let me give you an example from my own life. If you ever have done a workshop with me, you know that some of my stories are not true. Okay? This one is. This one is as close to the truth as I can make it. So I’m a teenager in Richmond, Virginia, which is on the east coast of America. I’m a high school senior, so I’m 17 years old, and I don’t date, I don’t have a girlfriend. I’m a straight guy. I don’t have a girlfriend.
I had lots of friends that were female, but I don’t have a girlfriend. And one of my friends is the head cheerleader, Marie. It’s Christmas vacation coming up in my senior year. So it’s December, end of December. She comes up and says, “Johnny, you need a date for this New Year’s Eve party coming up. And I fixed you up with somebody.” My heart just starts pounding. Oh my God, a date. What happens on a date? So I’m just terrified, right? And I said, “Okay, who is it with?” And she tells me it’s Diane. Now, if you’re a straight guy, Diane in 1958 or 57, in Richmond, Virginia, would be like, wow, okay, this is incredible. I thought she’d be going out with somebody else, the quarterback of the football team or whatever the stereotype is. And I said, “Oh,” and she said, “Johnny, you’re going to be fine. You know, just come have fun.” So I go to pick up Diane on New Year’s Eve. I drive by, pick her up, she comes out. She’s just lovely. We have this great conversation, we go to this party at my friend’s house. We go inside, and there’s like a recreation room, right? There are 6 or 7 couples, all my classmates, all dancing. And there’s a TV up in the corner. The record player is playing like Johnny Mathis. “Chances Are,” you know. My learning curve is like vertical, asymptotic to the vertical.
I’m thinking, okay, what do I do now? I’m really just panicked. But I knew I liked to dance. I knew how to dance, so I figured I was doing okay. Well, at some point I’m sitting on the bench with Diane, and everybody stops dancing and looks up at the TV screen in the corner, black and white TV, of course, 1957. Well, here comes the ball on central, you know, central square. Ten 987654321. And everybody in the room starts kissing. Now, I had never seen kissing like this before in 17 years. I never saw my parents hug or kiss. Right. I had been kissed by my Aunt May. “Come here, Johnny. Let me give you some sugar,” you know, one of those kisses where you feel like you need to towel off after the kiss, right? But I had never seen this kind of kissing. And so, Diane, bless her heart, she takes my face like this, and she turns me around, and she gives me the kiss against which all future kisses will be measured. And I go, “Oh. Ah. Now I see why people like to do this.” And so, you know, we’re dancing and then it’s time to take her home. So we’re getting our coats on to go out to my car. And I’m thinking, I wonder if I could get another one of those kisses. So I take her. We drive up to her house. I can still see that little brick house on Bromley Avenue in Richmond, Virginia.
And I walk her up to the door, you know, go around because it’s Virginia, 1957. I’m a Virginia gentleman. So I go around, open the door, walk her up to the door, and she takes out her keys, goes inside, and I kind of lean in to get a kiss, and she closes the door. Now from inside the door, I hear her talking. And what I heard was, “Johnny Scherer, don’t you get any ideas? The only reason I let you kiss me is because it was New Year’s Eve.” My God, I was just devastated. I walked back to my car and drove home. Just devastated. Now I had buddies that would have walked away from that door saying, “What’s wrong with her?” You know, “Boy, she missed a good deal or something.” I walked away from that door saying, “You know, what’s wrong with me?” Actually, I walked away from that door saying, “Well, of course, of course you wouldn’t want to kiss me.” Now here’s the question: What happened behind the door? So if you look up at this graph of the three worlds, this orange character over here, that should be Diane. So imagine if that’s Diane behind the door. So what’s the theoretical number of things, texts, and intentions that might have been happening behind the door in a young woman in 1957 that might have her say or do something like that? Unmute or maybe use the chat box. Tell me, what’s the theoretical number of possible things that could be happening behind the door? What’s the number?
Literally infinite. There could be any number of things.
Absolutely right, Tommy. Gold star. The answer is an infinite number of things. Let’s just brainstorm a couple. I wonder if there’s a way you can raise your hand or something so we don’t have 200 people trying to talk at the same time. Let me start with you, Tommy. Are you free? Yeah. Are you there? Okay. What’s one thing that might have been happening behind the door?
Uh, her parents may have been awake and doing the whole, “Where have you been, young missy,” or something like that. I don’t know.
Great. Lise, what about you? What’s one thing that might have been happening behind the door?
I don’t know. Come on.
You’ve been there. Some guy. Okay, let me throw one out. It might help you all. Maybe her father was standing there, and she wanted to show him that she was being a good girl. Okay. Yeah. Got it. Josh, what about you, buddy? What do you think might else be going on behind the door?
With me? There’s plenty of.
Glass.
Yeah. That’s me, that’s me. So maybe she really liked you and she didn’t want you to get too close too fast.
Oh, I love you, buddy. Oh, I wish, I wish I’d had access to that one, let me tell you. How about Tally Singer? How about you, Tally? What else might be happening?
Uh, maybe she had just broken up with another boyfriend and felt bad about kissing you.
Super. Christina. Christina Brown, what would you say?
Maybe she just was having a bad day and just felt like. Exactly.
Exactly. Eduardo. Como.
Well, actually. Well, I don’t know if there is another Eduardo, but I have no idea. Maybe she was having a bad day. Maybe I got an idea. I just want to catch up.
That’s fine. Actually, I’m kind of demonstrating something here that we’ll get to later. In some parts of the world, people want to put an answer out there, you know, kind of flood the world with information, while in other cultures, people are more careful. Like, “Let me think about this for a while before I put it out there.” Look, there’s an infinite number of things. Now I’m the guy on the right-hand side, right? How many possible interpretations theoretically should be available to a young man on the outside of the door? What’s the theoretical number? So, Tommy, what’s the number?
Theoretically infinite.
Yeah, exactly. Okay, folks, how many do you think were actually available to me in that moment? Hold up your fingers. How many do you think? Hold up your fingers. How many interpretations should be available to me? Okay, I see some. Ah. What do you think, buddy? How many? Five. Ten. One. Six. Five. Okay. I wish, man, there was only one interpretation available to me. How do you know? I actually took it with me to the party. You remember when I said, how could she be going? Why would she be going out with me? She should be going out with some other guy. So you see, what I’m saying is that we are walking around with an interpretation, looking for data. I was an interpreter. I already had an attitude about myself. I had a theory about myself, about, in this case, girls, that I was, you know, girls and boys, what they were supposed to do together and how you do it. What is it? What do you do on a date? Stuff like that. And I brought that, “I don’t date, I don’t, I don’t whatever. Boys are supposed to have to be interesting to girls. In my case, I obviously don’t have it.” And so I brought that interpretation to the door. And there was the data to confirm it. Now, I’m telling you, if she had kissed me at the door, I would have been, I imagine, floated back to my car, and on the way home I would have started playing the videotape of the evening, and I would have.
I would have found some data to support my theory. I would have said, “You know what? I saw how she danced with Brad. My God, did you see? Did you see how she was flirting with Tommy?” You understand? I would have found some evidence to support the theory. The theory determines what we see. Our programming about ourselves, about other people, the names that we put on things, determine what we see when we look at them. As soon as we name something, it becomes what we need. Very good. So, any action, and you can see this, any action in the world, anything you could see on a video, there’s a certain number of possible intentions on the sender’s part and a certain number of interpretations available on the interpreter’s part. And what’s the likelihood that they’re going to match up? And then you throw in things like countries and cultures and ages and languages and all the other ways that we use to rank and separate ourselves. Holy mackerel! It’s a miracle that there’s any understanding or communication at all. So over here, somebody was coming from one interpretation, and the other person has a default. I always have this default with fill in the blank: older people, millennials, people from Poland, people from Silicon Valley, white people, women. I mean, whatever it is, people that went to college, people that didn’t go to college.
We’ll find hundreds of ways we can sort it out. And then we have an attitude waiting to happen, an interpretation waiting. And there it is. Oh, yep. There it is again. So this is why this whole intercultural thing is not just about countries. We come with a culture. So here’s where we’re headed. What we’re going to do is invite you to consciously catch yourself making an interpretation. And that first one, quite often the default, is over here on the left-hand side of this continuum. This is a continuum of how much respect and, frankly, how much possibility for the relationship, is over on the left-hand side. There’s usually some element of blame and make-wrong. “They shouldn’t be like that. They shouldn’t do that. They shouldn’t say that in an email. They shouldn’t take that long to respond to something. They shouldn’t ask me to talk about my family on a business call.” It may be subtle, but that’s what’s going on. And then we can move over toward the middle. If it’s our best friend, you know, in the middle, we kind of give them the benefit of the doubt, we call it. “Well, you know, maybe they had a bad day,” see? And, you know, like you were saying, it’s not making them wrong anymore or at least letting go of making them wrong.
Where we are inviting you to go is all the way over to the right with what I’ve called a more or most respectful interpretation, MRI. And I chose that MRI, trying to be clever. But also, the MRI allows you to see beneath the skin into the depth of a situation. So what we’re going to be asking you to do and inviting you to do, and actually, frankly, training you to do in this hour, hour and a half we have with you, is how to let go of your default interpretation and create a more respectful interpretation. Just before we leave this mission, years ago, I asked this group in one of our leadership seminars what would be an MRI for what happened at the door, what was happening in Diane’s world. And I’ve forgotten which one of you said it, but somebody in the group said, “John, how about this one? She was so excited by that first kiss that she was afraid to let you in, that she might not be able to control herself.” And I went, “Yes, yes, yes. Finally, after 50 years, I know what happened behind the door.” Why not? We’re making it up anyway, right? We’re making it up anyway. Why not catch ourselves and consciously make up another possibility? What might be happening in that person’s world that I’m not aware of, that might be having them do that? Okay, Misha. Anything else before I hand off? Well, I.
Yeah. So, as John said, because of our history, our experiences, our culture, we are interpretations looking for data. I would like to show you some mechanisms which influence that. So, yeah, preparing for these intercultural webinars, I found some genuine complaints received by British travel agents, Thomas Cook, from dissatisfied customers. See what they said or what they wrote, actually. “On my holiday to Goa in India, I was disgusted to find that almost every restaurant serves curry. I don’t like spicy food.” “It is lazy of the local shopkeepers in Puerto Vallarta to close in the afternoons. I often needed to buy things during siesta time. This should be banned.” “We found that the sand was not like the sand in the brochure. Your brochure shows the sand as yellow, but it was white.” And the last one, my favorite: “When we were in Spain, there were too many Spanish people there. The receptionist spoke Spanish. The food was Spanish. No one told us that there would be so many foreigners.”
When we were in Spain, there were too many Spanish people there. The receptionist spoke Spanish. The food was Spanish. No one told us that there would be so many foreigners. And as you can see, these complaints sound quite absurd. But when we work with companies in this intercultural environment, a lot of complaints we hear are, I would say, equally ridiculous. They say things like, “They are lazy,” or “They send me empty emails.” I once heard someone complain about members of one culture, saying, “They keep lying to us,” and so on, not having a deeper understanding of where these differences come from. So there are three basic attitudes people have when it comes to this intercultural approach.
One is called cultural ignorance. This is when we don’t see the differences; we are blind to them. We have this assumption, with positive intentions, that we are all humans. Why talk about differences? We are here to do business. We are all part of the same company. So, yeah, let’s cooperate. However, we need to acknowledge that there are differences, and the way we overcome them influences our effectiveness. Another attitude worth mentioning is called cultural intolerance. On one hand, we are aware that there are differences. However, we are not happy with them. We want the others to change. For example, I notice that they communicate differently and are too direct, and I think they should change. In this intolerance mode, we have the approach that the others should adjust.
Cultural competence is the moment where we notice differences, and we are okay with them. It doesn’t mean that we are already competent in switching between different styles, but we are accepting this. However, what is needed is just skilling up. How to overcome it, or what to do differently, to adjust and be more effective. Talking about differences, it is very easy to fall into stereotyping.
There are thousands of stereotypes about different cultures and groups. Stereotyping is a natural process of how our brain works because there is so much information in the world that our mind needs to categorize it in some way. These stereotypes live their own life until we catch them. For example, let’s imagine there is a culture where being on time is a sign of respect. Being punctual is ultra-important. In Poland, we see Germany as such a culture. It’s easy to label Germans as very punctual. Probably some of you have had such experiences. When we treat it as a stereotype, we see that almost all people in a given culture behave in a certain way. So, we put everybody in one group. On the other hand, there are cultures where it’s not about being punctual but more about being flexible and adjusting to reality. Can you give me some examples of cultures that are stereotypically more flexible with time? You can write in the chat box.
I see someone wrote Mexico and Brazil. Exactly.
People tend to say that people from the South, from those warm cultures, are more flexible with time. When there is a lot of sun, exactly. When we look at these stereotype differences, the gap seems huge. It seems impossible to connect, but culture is much richer when it comes to understanding what it actually means. We can compare culture to an iceberg. Everything above the water is what is seen, heard, and noticed. Everything observable is above the waterline. However, below the waterline, there is much more. Everything below influences what is visible and in our conscious minds. These are the values important to a given culture. Because of these aspects, culture works like a filter of attention. For cultures where being on time is a sign of respect, they focus on aspects like measuring time, defining deadlines, and managing small units of time. For others, the attention will be on what is happening now and the relations with people they meet. Culture works like a filter of attention and also as a code of meaning.
In an intercultural environment, most of us use English. However, what we understand behind certain words can be completely different. For example, the word “deadline” is used very widely. In Poland, a deadline is the date for sending documents. How is it in the States, John? How is a deadline understood there?
Well, in America, it sometimes depends on the region. In the southeast or the Deep South, it’s different from New York City, LA, or Seattle, where I have my home. Things are more laid back in certain parts of the world. But in general, the European, especially Eastern European culture, is much more likely to hit the deadline.
Hitting the line, yes. This is your experience. Even though we use the word deadline, some people treat it as the very latest moment to send documents, while for others, it’s more like a guideline. Let’s connect on this date and see where we are and then follow up.
In America, we might push the due date, change the scope, or extend it. There are other ways of talking about missing a deadline.
Exactly. People have an influence on this. Another example is the word “problem.” In Poland, we have a lot of issues, which we call problems. We don’t have problems with problems. However, in English, especially in the UK, what does the word “problem” mean? Can anyone share? If I call you and say, “Houston, we’ve got a problem,” is it a small or big problem?
It’s something significant enough that we need to stop and talk about it. It either means you’ve got a major issue or something urgent to handle.
Houston, we’ve got a problem. This American metaphor means you can’t do anything until that’s handled. It’s not something you do; it’s something you have to stop and address.
Exactly. In Poland, we have a lot of issues we call problems. It’s how we use certain words. Different cultures have different norms and rules to follow, different red lights and green lights. Is it allowed to challenge others? Is it allowed to question their opinion or the boss’s opinion? In each culture, it’s different. We need to remember that not everyone in a culture behaves the same way. Research shows that most people in a culture will behave in a certain way, but there will always be exceptions. We will talk today about specific tendencies in different cultures, but it doesn’t mean everyone is forced to behave that way. Individual behavior differs, but these general tendencies help make more adequate interpretations in intercultural situations.
Where do we see these intercultural differences? How trust is built, how much time is enough for lunch, how decisions are made, who is invited to make decisions, how to know if it’s the final decision, what is urgent, what percentage of time is planned, and the most important aspect: communication. How to give feedback, how to approach your boss, and whether you change the way you speak with your boss or use the same language while communicating with others. We will focus on some of these aspects today to give you more insights on how to improve communication between locations and with clients.
We should say that these are not randomly selected, but some that turned up in our getting-to-know-you sessions. These should be familiar to some of you.
Let’s focus on trust-building aspects. How is trust built in different cultures? Imagine there is a person named Olympia joining your team. What would you like to know about her to work effectively with her? I invite you to answer this question using Slido. Please use your smartphones or another browser and go to Slido.com with the code #S772. Answer the question: What would you like to know about a new person joining your team to work effectively with her and build trust? Let’s see what you come up with.
Someone wrote the code. What are her preferred communication channels? What are her likes and dislikes? Her expertise, previous work experience, hobbies, how she likes to work, what motivates her, how many sugars in her hot drink, her skills, her background, and her horoscope. Great insights!
Huh? What is her onboarding plan? And if I’m involved in it, how hard she works. Job history. Where she lives. Great. So, as you can see, there is a huge variety of aspects which will be important for you to get to know about her. So, even what she prefers for taking breaks. If we focus on cultural differences in these aspects, what would you like to know about the other person to trust her? We can see that there are mainly two types of ways of building trust. And there was this researcher named Fons Trompenaars. He came up with the observation that cultures actually differentiate, right? Yeah, cultures differ when it comes to this trust-building process. And he named one way of building trust as a coconut culture and the other one as a peach culture. As you can assume, coconut cultures are very hard on the outside. They are harsh and not easy to break. People in these cultures are reserved and need more time to warm up to strangers. They don’t talk eagerly about their private life because they separate private life from public life. They don’t talk much about their private issues at work, and they don’t talk much about work after working hours. You can observe this social distance, which is visible between people; they are not so open to each other.
However, when it comes to sharing very intimate things, they do have friends, but only once you break the shell. Then you get trust, care, and support. But you need to break the shell. On the other side, we have this peach culture. People in these cultures are much more extroverted with strangers. They talk openly in public. They ask a lot of questions, sometimes perceived by coconuts as too personal. Even such questions at the first meeting as, “Oh, hello, how are you? Married? Do you have kids already? How much do you earn?” and so on. Because this is the way they make friends. But these are just friends whom you invite to parties but never give your address to. So, it’s just a way of being with others, being friendly and creating a nice atmosphere, but it’s not yet about building a very strong friendship. In these cultures, private and public topics are more interwoven. It means that at the workplace, I can also arrange some of my private stuff, and after working hours, I am also ready to work if needed. So, John, when it comes to your observations, where would you place Poland?
Well, folks, I could talk for an hour about this. Let’s see if I can do it in about two minutes. When I first came to Poland, I realized that my enthusiasm and, like, I’m a runner, right? So I’m running around early in the morning, here comes another runner, and I’m like, “Hey, dzień dobry, hello, how are you?” And the runner looks at me like, “What does he want?” An invitation to connect before trust is established is seen as kind of suspicious. What does he really want? I walked into a store once when I was first here, and the woman said, “Can I help you?” She said it in English, which is very unusual. I turned to my friend Darek, and I said, “How does she know to speak to me in English?” And he said, “Yannick, we can spot an American walking down the street.” I asked, “What do you mean?” He said, “Notice how people your age walk down the street.” I said, “What are you talking about?” So I went out, and people over, you know, the millennials—that’s another story—but people in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s look down. They don’t look up. You don’t make eye contact. He said, “The only people who look up are Americans.” I said, “Well, how do you make friends?” He said, “Very carefully. Look at our history. You never know who to trust. When we were little, we were taught, ‘Don’t talk to strangers.’ This is serious, not like in America. You really don’t want to reveal something to people you don’t know.” He said, “When we come into our house and close the door with our close circle of friends, now we can open up. But when Americans come, you can sit in Poland—it might not be true now, Misha, but 12 years ago—you could sit next to somebody at work in Poland for years, and you might see a ring on their finger or something, but you might not know anything about their family, hobbies, or whatever they did. Whereas in America, people have all this stuff on their desks, pictures, and hey, there’s this intermingling of those two worlds.” I have not been successful all the time because of my natural enthusiasm. Fortunately, enough people here have said, “We trust you, Yannick.” But this has been the biggest thing for me about being here.
So, guys, if you could write in the chat box or unmute yourself, which cultures are coconut cultures from your experience?
Polish.
Polish for sure. What else do we have? Scandinavian. Great. Russian. Polish.
German?
Yeah, we have in the chat box: German, Danish, Japanese, Finnish, Korean. Fantastic.
You know how to tell if a Norwegian is an extrovert? They look at your shoes when they’re talking to you.
Yeah, not on their own. Yeah.
That’s what one of my Norwegian friends told me.
Okay, and when it comes to peach cultures, which cultures will be more like peach?
Mostly Latin American.
Fantastic. Mhm.
Latin American, Americans, definitely.
We have also South Africans, Northern England, American Midwest, Colombia, Italy, Caribbean. Great. Also, India, Malaysia, those regions. So, these are the first symptoms if I trust the other person or not. This slide is one of the most useful ones when it comes to intercultural communication. Let’s imagine that one iceberg is a coconut and the other one is a peach. When they meet each other, what is happening? Very quickly, we interpret the behaviors of the other person through our own lenses, our own values. This makes coconuts think that peaches are superficial because they are not talking about real issues, just their successes. On the other hand, peaches will say that coconuts are too stiff and self-centered. John, do you want to add something, or am I just reading your nonverbal communication?
I’m just thinking about what you’re saying.
So, let’s imagine that you are in a meeting where your manager is presenting a new project plan to the team, and you don’t find it realistic. How do you react? Would you present your opinion instantly during the meeting?
Misha, even saying that you don’t find it realistic is affected by culture, you know? The way you phrase it. You understand what I’m saying? Yeah, go ahead. In America, you’d use another phrase.
Would you kindly suggest, “Sounds like an interesting idea. Have you considered?” Or would you prefer not to share your thoughts in front of the manager? Again, we’re going to use Slido so you can anonymously vote on the answer. Which reaction would be the most typical for you? Great, I see we have a variety here.
This is very cool, Misha.
I love it.
See, now, a Polish colleague would probably not say that in the middle of a session.
For sure.
They might think it, but they might not say it. Probably not.
Exactly.
Okay, so what we can see is that most of you would kindly suggest that something sounds like an interesting idea. “Have you considered?” would be a polite way of mentioning what you think. Instead of you sharing, what did you choose and why?
I’ll share. I chose that I would present my opinion instantly during the meeting, but I think that’s because I feel very open to a collaborative workspace. So, once the idea is out there, we should build on it. That’s why I chose that one.
So just sharing these opinions is like the beginning of the conversation, and as you said, collaborating.
Yes, exactly.
Thank you.
Great, and someone else?
Well, I kind of chose A and B, but I want to add that I would probably do it in private, not immediately during the meeting, but we had only three options. So that was my choice. I would feel more comfortable being like, you know, “Listen, I think we should consider this,” but in private, never in front of other people or teammates. Not with this approach.
And why would it be important?
I think it’s just for the sake of comfort, for both me and the person presenting something, whether it’s my manager or my colleague. It’s about comfort and maybe it’s cultural, but I think my bubble around me, like in my work, is more about showing respect. Saying stuff that’s not super positive in private and saying positive things in public. That’s my experience.
Great.
In response, I have an Israeli colleague who’s a consultant, and he says it always surprises me. He said the way Israelis frequently build trust is by being confronted in the meeting in front of everybody. Like, I trust you, so I trust you enough to throw this at you. Which is really different from many other cultures. Just so you know.
Yeah.
It is very culturally specific because, on one hand, it’s about how direct or indirect we are, and we’re going to touch on this topic later. At this moment, I would like to focus on our relationship with the manager and to what extent we are willing to challenge what he or she is saying. There are cultures which are egalitarian, where everybody is equally treated and power is shared, and there are cultures which are more hierarchical. In egalitarian cultures, communication skips hierarchical lines. This means that whenever I need some information, I can contact the person directly. There is no need to ask someone to come to me. This actually happened with this webinar because one of you who attended another meeting contacted me directly to ask if it would be recorded. This means that Boosky culture is more egalitarian. You can contact me directly; you don’t need to contact someone from HR who ordered this webinar. Another thing is that everybody is equally treated, so it means that everybody’s voice is equally important. During the meeting, all of us can share, as Clark mentioned, because our voices are just important.
The assumption is that the best boss is someone who is more like a facilitator among equals. Such a person doesn’t have to have all the answers; it’s more about knowing where to find them. Because of this, we are equal and I’m okay with you not knowing. I can challenge your opinion and say, “Hey, we need to change that. It won’t work.” Also, what is typical in this culture is moving on without needing the boss’s final okay. For example, when we are in a meeting and agree on something, this is enough for the team to start working. It’s not about the last managerial decision to have the final stamp. In these cultures, it is not needed to copy your boss in your communication because sometimes it is seen as a lack of trust. Why would you copy me in this? Why would you want me to control that? John, I see you’re smiling. Do you recognize this pattern?
That’s really interesting, isn’t it?
Yeah.
On the other side, we have hierarchical cultures where there is a high power distance between employee and manager or boss. This means that the way I communicate with a person who is higher in hierarchy is different. I talk about different things and behave differently. In some cultures, for example, in Nigeria, this distance is so huge that employees don’t feel okay looking into the eyes of their manager. It’s a sign of respect. A good boss is someone who leads from the front and has to have all the answers, because we follow you, and you are the one taking this load. Organizational structures are more multi-layered, meaning these hierarchical ladders are longer. People have a lot of titles; the ladders are just longer. Once in India, I met someone with a business card that read “Future Call Center Manager.” Status is very important. It’s also important to know where you are on the ladder. People speak according to their position. It is really important who speaks when. If you speak too early, it can mean you are not important because this is about operational stuff. In Japan, for example, speaking too early means you are not important.
Main decisions come at the end, made by people in high positions. Controlling and obedience are stronger. Managers control what employees deliver; there is more micromanaging, but also employees follow what the manager says. There is a bigger level of obedience because there is trust that the manager is experienced and knows what needs to be done. If we want to work with hierarchical cultures and hear their opinions, it’s important to have brainstorming sessions without the boss. Only then will employees share their views more openly, and you can hear great ideas. The last advice is that, because of this distance between employee and manager, it’s important to let people prepare for meetings. Let them know the agenda beforehand because people in high positions in hierarchical cultures need to save face and have all the answers. They prefer to prepare for meetings to make good decisions. John, how do you see the difference between Poland and American culture?
I was just thinking about that. Doing this leadership development work for years in America, every time one of the leaders came, we have a solo program for executives. Over half the time, they come with their spouse. In 12 years here, I’ve had one executive come with their spouse. That’s about the personal, private thing. Why would I want to share my personal development with my spouse? In America, most bosses don’t want to be in the room. They don’t want to air their laundry in front of their people. They’d rather have the solo program and then put their people through the leadership program. Here, more often than not, the boss will say, “I’m part of the team. I’m okay with that.” I don’t think it’s as clear to me.
According to the newest research, egalitarian cultures are mainly Dutch and Scandinavian. The States are also egalitarian. The most hierarchical cultures are Japan, Mexico, Korea, India, China, Brazil. Europe: Russia is more hierarchical, Poland is more hierarchical as well. The UK is more egalitarian.
What would you say about Booksy culture, guys? Is it more egalitarian or hierarchical?
Maybe it’s those two curves, Misha.
Maybe, yeah.
Maybe it’s a bimodal curve, huh?
Someone is writing in the chat box that preparing for meetings is very popular in their culture. If you can mention which culture, Joon Yun, where do you come from? Sometimes we have pre-meetings for the pre-meeting as well. Is it someone in Asia?
Yeah. What I’m saying about Booksy culture, most of you wrote that it’s egalitarian. Booksy culture is amazing, more egalitarian. It’s good to have a similar understanding. For example, voting in the meeting. In some cultures, it’s a natural way of making decisions. In others, it’s just a good way of gathering opinions, but the final decision will be made by the manager. Let’s move to the next aspect. We had trust and making decisions, now we are talking about relating—how expectations influence how we communicate. I’m going to start with a short anecdote to illustrate the difference. Imagine a man and a woman. The woman is carrying bags and says, “These bags are heavy.” What does the man hear? What is his interpretation of these words? You can also write in the chat box. What does the man hear?
“Please help me with these bags.” That’s where my training from Virginia would come out. It would never cross my mind that she was saying, “Look how strong I am” or something like that. You know what I mean? It would never cross my mind.
Exactly.
Some of you wrote thoughts about help. Some of you wrote she bought too many things, or she’s complaining, “Can you carry these bags?” But as you said, John, one interpretation could be, “Wow, you’re so strong.” At the same time, some men or other people could just hear, “These bags are heavy.” Simple as that.
Um, I want help.
If these bags are heavy, if I want help, I’ll ask for it, right?
Exactly, exactly. And this is the biggest difference when it comes to communicating between cultures. The easiest way to name this difference is that there are cultures which are explicit and cultures which are more implicit. In explicit cultures, meaning is stated directly. You say exactly what you mean and mean what you say, and this is what you just said—if I wanted help, I would ask for it, and that’s it. In implicit cultures, the other person needs to figure out what the message is about, and it’s not about gender differences but more about culture. This aspect influences a lot of business aspects, like how you delegate tasks. Do you say directly what you expect from whom in the team, or do you just say, “Take care of it”? Will I say, “John, you should do this or that,” or am I implicitly telling you to figure out what needs to be done? How do you give feedback? Do you say exactly what mistakes someone made, or do you just say it could have been done differently, leaving the other person to figure out what needs to be corrected? How do you share information? Do you treat information as a resource you don’t share, or do you come from explicit cultures where, whenever someone asks, you just give this information but don’t do it on your own because no one asked you? It’s also about sharing information and how you manage conflict.
This is even true in a group like this in Eastern Europe. When I ask people to unmute and speak, people are very reluctant because it’s like saying, “Look at me, look at me,” whereas in America, people are much more likely to say, “I know, I know, I know,” like in school. The other thing I’ve learned is that if I call on somebody here, everybody has something really interesting to say. It’s not like people don’t have anything to say; they’ve got a lot to say. They just don’t have permission to launch into the empty space without an invitation.
Without the invitation, like a direct invitation. So, talking about these differences, I will name it in the way it appears in research. We talk about the difference between these cultures, which is called contextuality. What is context? Context informs us how much we need to know each other to achieve effective understanding or to what extent speakers should share their views directly. We have cultures called high-context cultures.
In high-context cultures, we need to have a lot of context between us to understand each other well. So, I need to build a relationship with you to understand what you mean. In low-context cultures, things are said very explicitly. I don’t need to know you; I don’t need to have any context with you because I will be very explicit. You don’t need to figure out anything; I will be as direct as I can be for you to understand. What does this exactly mean? A good example of low-context cultures is that the message is very direct. For example, here is a picture that says, “This is not actual size.”
In low-context cultures, this should be said because it is what it is. In high-context cultures, it would be like, “Come on, it’s obvious that it’s not actual size. How could you even think that it is actual size?” But in low-context cultures, it should be stated clearly. The same with “This product contains peanuts.” There are no doubts that it contains peanuts. So, what can we say more about low-context cultures? There is a big task orientation. People are focused on doing tasks. Because of being low-context, I don’t need to build a relationship with you because I will be so clear that you don’t need to know me well. We are focused on tasks, and I’m okay with directly expressing my expectations, saying exactly what is expected from you. What is also typical for low-context cultures is that we know exactly who is responsible for what. There is a very clear assignment of responsibilities. So, if someone delivers, we know exactly who did that. If someone didn’t, we also know who didn’t, because this responsibility was assigned very clearly. Very often in low-context cultures, people are driven by an initial set of rules. Before we start working, we prepare a kind of contract or talk about what is expected from each other. It’s much easier to come back to it and negotiate. Knowledge transfer in low-context cultures is quite easy because the knowledge is very proceduralized. Everything is written, everything is clear. People know who should do what, when, and how. It is just organized. Decisions are based on facts and statistics. We need low context, so we just need information. We are focusing more on the world as much as possible, relating to the three worlds. These are basic characteristics of low-context cultures. John, is this something familiar to you, or is it different?
I was just thinking that here in Poland, I think it’s more likely that people would say, “John, we don’t need to build a relationship in order to work together. The way we build the relationship is to start doing tasks. Let’s just do this. Stop talking about everything. Let’s just do this.” As we work together, the relationship will come out of the task rather than first building a relationship and then trusting enough to do the work. Maybe I’m overstating it, but I experience some of that here. Like, let’s just work. Why do we have to talk about our friendship and stuff?
On the other hand, we have high-context cultures where everything is more contextualized. Everything depends, actually. What do we see?
This is definitely the three worlds here between these two. Exactly.
In high-context cultures, understanding the message depends on the context. We can have the same message understood differently by different people in different circumstances. For example, what I’m saying can mean different things depending on who is attending the call. If it’s a manager or someone else, or people from one department or another. Because of that, it’s important to have this common context. Relationships between people are stronger, and it’s important to know who is a friend and who is the other, like who is in our circle. I can be indirect, and they will know what I mean. While preparing this presentation, John noticed that talking about cultural differences also involves quotation marks we use.
I could just imagine some of you from America saying, “Geez, why do they do that with the quotation marks?”
We were also curious how many of you have noticed that in Poland we use double quotation marks, and in other places, just one. It’s just another cultural difference. In high-context cultures, verbal communication is very indirect, especially when it comes to difficult issues. They are communicated with workarounds. Before I pass a message that I assume will be received uncomfortably by the other person, I need to prepare the ground. I reveal small information that allows the other person to conclude on their own what the bad message is. Preparing the ground is really important. Because of being non-explicit, non-verbal communication is also important. More people connect face-to-face or with video calls to see more non-verbal communication, emotions, and other aspects that can give you a message about the meaning of the text. In these cultures, people don’t focus so much on facts and statistics; it’s more about intuition and the feeling of what is really communicated. Rather than what is communicated, it’s important how people communicate.
To see how it works in action, let’s have another case study. Imagine you need your colleague to send you specific data so you can complete a task related to the project you both are working on. How would you formulate your request? Would you say, “Please send me this data by Friday,” “Could you send me this data set by Friday,” or “If this is convenient for you, I would appreciate it if you could send the data by this Friday. Thanks a lot.” Again, we’re going to use Slido so you can vote. Forget about this last option; I don’t know how it happened, but it’s there.
I’m interested, Misha. I probably should know this because it’s the first time we’ve worked with so many in the organization. What is the relative percentage of people from the American culture and the non-American culture, like Brazil, Eastern Europe, and other cultures? Can someone put that split in the chat box? Does anybody know? We’ll find out. Is it like 50/50, or is it 80/20? Is the tail wagging the dog because the smaller numbers are the executives? How does that work out? The rank in the organization also helps to shape the culture. What culture are the most high-ranking people from, and so on?
Maybe we can check this out later.
Yeah.
I will ask some of you to share what you chose and why. Who chose B, “Could you send me this data by Friday?” Why did you choose B?
It’s more direct but also not so much so that it’s offensive.
So it’s about being direct but not being offensive. Thank you, John. What about A? And you, John, where are you based? Where are you from?
I’m from Chicago. Sorry, I didn’t realize you were speaking to me.
That’s fine. Thank you. Ian, do you go by Ian instead of Ian?
Yeah, Ian usually does.
It’s like Ian is like John, you know, John or something.
Exactly. I should know this, but thank you.
We should know this.
We should. We can just talk about it, guys. Come on. We are all learning all the time. Who chose A, “Please send me this data by Friday”?
I did. I chose A because I’m being polite but direct. I don’t want to give the colleague too many options. I want them to send it by Friday, and I don’t want it to be a guess. I want it done by Friday.
Great. Thank you, Alicia. And the last one?
I chose C. In Brazil, sometimes the person is full of tasks, and I need to remind him. In Brazil, we are very sentimental, so you ask with a lot of love.
So you are more careful, giving the request with a touch of sentiment.
The relationship ultimately is more important than getting the data.
Yes, it’s my friend. Please, can you send me this piece of information?
Thank you very much for sharing these aspects. These are great examples of how direct or indirect we can be. We can also see these differences while formulating emails. Imagine that we did this exercise with some groups at Booksy, and I wanted to show you how differently people replied to illustrate the variety of understanding what it means to communicate explicitly or implicitly. Imagine you’re dissatisfied with a fellow team member’s approach to sharing information. They failed to meet the criteria we agreed on at the beginning of the project, both in terms of quality of information and deadlines. This person is of strategic importance to you and your work. If this behavior continues, there is an increased risk that the project could fail, and you are both at the same hierarchical level, but you haven’t met them in person yet. Let’s see how differently you can formulate such an email.
You can formulate the email this way: “Dear Steve, at the beginning of the XYZ project, we both decided to deliver our values on a certain level of quality and time. Based on the latest events in our project, I must tell you I’m not pleased with your current attitude, and I think you should work on informing us when something bad starts to happen. Also, what is the reason for the low quality level of your solutions? Could you provide me with some examples? If such behavior continues, there is an increased risk that the project will fail, leading us to financial losses and damaging our company’s image. We can all benefit if you change your attitude.” Of course, names are made up. As you can see, this email is very low-context; it’s very direct. We exactly say that someone did something wrong and that the person should change their behavior. On the opposite side, we have this email, which is called a request. It goes like this: “Hey, Beth, thanks so much again for your help on this campaign. I wanted to sync up and chat about progress so far and the product launch. I can throw some time on your calendar.”
Not a clue in any of that that something is wrong.
So, John would not know what’s going on. This is an example of a high-context email. None of these emails is good or bad. It’s more about to what extent are we directly stating what we need from the other person, what happened, and to what extent we focus on facts instead of our interpretations.
What is it time for now?
What is the time exactly?
We sometimes work with the Maasai culture.
This will be the last thing I say, and then I’ll give you the floor, John.
I don’t have to tell the story, but I think it’s really important in this context.
To sum up this aspect of communication, remember that being direct and transparent isn’t intended to be rude or impolite; it’s about being transparent. On the other side, being indirect doesn’t mean touchy-feely; it’s about being sensitive to the context and caring about the relationship. So, these are things that are below the waterline in our icebergs. On one hand, it’s about caring for transparency, and on the other, it’s caring about the relationship. It’s not about intending to offend anyone or being dishonest. John, I think it’s a good time for you to share the story.
We sometimes take business people into the bush in Kenya to work with the Maasai. I met a Maasai warrior in Seattle, a fabulous guy. He’s like a little brother to me, and he calls me his brother. On my first trip there, I traded this warrior my wristwatch and binoculars for a spear and a shield. A couple of days later, I went to my good friend Kakuta, who was this young elder, and I said, “Kakuta, I’m having a problem.” He said, “Brother, what is it?” I said, “No, no, it’s okay. I traded Kaboly my wristwatch, and now I can’t tell what time it is.” He gave me this. I said, “What is this?” He said, “This is a Maasai wristwatch.” I said, “How does it work?” I figured you put a toothpick up here and do something with the sun. He pointed to it and said, “Look, it’s time for us to be doing exactly what we’re doing right now.” I was like, “Oh my God.” I’m still telling this story ten years later. There are two kinds of time. There’s clock time, which is “It’s one minute to five. Where are we supposed to be?” And then there’s some other kind of time. “What is it time for now? What does this situation need from me now?” When you’re dealing with multiple contexts, whether it’s different cultures or not, this is management, this is leadership. This is one kind of culture, a high-context culture. “What is it time for now?” The Maasai people are really masterful at that. The Germans and the Dutch and the Poles are really good at clock time. The question is, “What is it time for now? Is it time for me to join my Polish or American colleague and speak their language? Is it time for me to just put it out there and take the thing?” I think that’s the message in this, Misha: to become more conscious in thinking, “What is it time for now from me?”
Right. And with this beautiful story, we reached the end of our webinar. Our intention is to make you more aware of these differences and to make you more aware of when it’s time to adjust and do things as others do, and when it’s time for you to reveal your preferred way of working to adjust it together and find a common way of working.
Can I suggest an American way of ending this webinar? Sure. I’m going to say, everybody unmute and at the count of three, say a word or two that summarizes what you’re taking away from this, or how you feel, or what you’re thinking. This is an American way to do it, right? All the people from Poland are going, “Oh God, oh God, oh God, I can’t believe he’s doing this.” Okay, ready? One. Two. Three.
References.
Thank you for the feedback. It was very helpful. Thank you.
So, thank you guys very much. I hope it was inspiring to you and you can use it in your everyday work.
Misha, how would Polish culture evaluate this? Not the way I did. How might a Polish person leading a workshop like this find out?
I would ask you to write what your takeaway is in the chat box.
What is your takeaway? So we could take our time and read it later.
Yes, we can. If you find the time, if you don’t have another meeting, you can share in the chat box. That can be useful for us. If you don’t have time, just enjoy your day.
I just have to say I’m sorry. This is my Americanism coming out. I look at your faces now, and I see it’s just, you know, I just wish we could all be in a room together. I think it would be really cool to spend some days together doing pretty much anything. You all are a fabulous, fascinating group of people. Misha and I are just really happy to be able to work with you. So that’s it.
Bye, everybody.
