Despite widespread criticism, Hofstede’s approach remains one of the most employed cross-cultural methods (Grandfils, 2019). Some of his dimensions, as well as the ones from GLOBE project research, support Meyer’s study. Indeed, the Power Distance dimension provides a backbone of her Leadership scale. Meyer’s tool, Culture Map, is a tried-and-true model comprised of eight scales which refer to critical issue domains characterized by cultural disparities, and it a relates them to multinational business situations. The ranking of a specific nation on one of the scales is not absolute since it tests a country's relative position in relation to another. As a result, a country's position on the eight scales may be determined by conducting a large number of qualitative interviews with local managers (Shinners, 2017).
Meyer (2015) proposes the first scale, “Communicating,” which takes into account the sense of contact and scales it from low to high (see Figure 10). This metric was originally established by the American anthropologist, Edward Hall (Meyer, 2014). Low context communicators convey their communications using easy, plain expression. Background or culture, body language, tone of speech, and so on are mostly irrelevant. The appreciated aspect of clear communication is the repetition. “Say what you think and mean what you say in simple, explicit vocabulary,” while in high context conversation, messages are often implied but not plainly expressed. In other words, one must “read between the lines,” the two communicators must have a shared baseline interpretation (Meyer, 2014).
Figure 10 Communicating scale (Meyer, 2015)
Meyer (2015) offers the second scale named “Evaluating,” which shows how direct people are when sharing feedback, especially the negative feedback (see Figure 11). The inference is that positive feedback is uniformly simple to send and receive and how secure we are accepting it. Many at the other end of the scale (for example, the Netherlands, Germany, and Hungary) expect to be instructed immediately, in broad strokes, whether they are doing anything wrong. When the positions are inverted, they will suggest the same thing.
Considering the direct negative feedback, this contact style is direct, candid, and even blunt.
Negative messages stand on their own, unaffected by constructive ones. When criticizing,
absolute descriptors are sometimes used. Furthermore, a person can be chastised in front of an audience. In contrast, indirect negative feedback is delivered gently and subtly, and optimistic words are used to disguise negative ones. Besides that, feedback is only provided in private.
Figure 11 Evaluating scale (Meyer, 2015)
Given the first scale “Communicating” and the second scale “Evaluating”, Erin Meyer (2015) put together a “feedback intersection” which she divided into four quadrants (see Figure 12).
In the first quadrant where direct and low context cultures are, Meyer (2015) advises not to try to mimic the direct negative feedback unless a person is also from a direct negative culture. It is advised in the second quadrant, which is unique to direct and high context cultures, not to take criticism negatively and to understand that this practice allows constructive reviews more important. It is assumed that in the third quadrant, which is important for indirect and low context cultures, positive feedback should be provided first, followed by negative feedback. In the final quadrant, which is unique to indirect and high context cultures, it is advised to never provide feedback in public and to only provide constructive input without specifying places for improvement.
Figure 12 Feedback Intersection (Meyer, 2015)
Meyer (2015) presents the third scale in her book, “Leading” and as previously stated, this scale was heavily influenced by Geert Hofstede's “Power Distance” dimension as well as it also relies on Robert House's and his colleagues' GLOBE study of 62 societies, which was conducted at the Wharton School (see Figure 13). The scale shows how less powerful individuals of a community tolerate and anticipate unequal distribution of power. The desired gap between a supervisor and a worker is small for cultures on the egalitarian end of the spectrum. A good boss is a facilitator of equals. Organizational structures are flat, with lower-level initiative encouraged. Communication also crosses bureaucratic boundaries.
Hierarchical is at the other end of the spectrum. The optimal difference between a supervisor and a subordinate is large in certain cultures. A strong director who leads from the front is the best boss. The importance of status and procedure cannot be overstated. Organizational processes are multilayered and unchanging. Communication is organized into predetermined bureaucratic lines.
Figure 13 Leading scale (Meyer, 2015)
Meyer (2015) addresses the fourth scale, “Deciding” which is linked to a culture's chosen leadership style and how choices are taken in organizations (see Figure 14). This scale's spectrum ranges from consensual to top-down. Consensual groups render choices by group agreement in an inclusive manner. NATO’s headquarters will be a fine illustration.
Individuals, normally the manager, make choices in top-down organizations. Except for Germany and the United States, everybody remains in roughly the same relative position on this continuum as they did on the leadership spectrum. Perhaps it reflects the German comfort level with direct feedback, as discussed in the grading scale. Perhaps, in terms of opportunity, Americans are more inclusive on the leadership scale, but they are more relaxed embracing top-down judgments from leaders until they are in control. The proximity of France and the United States on this scale is also noteworthy, since this is the only scale on which those two countries have the same pattern. The timeline and malleability of a judgment are related to an organization's decision-making style. It requires time to reach an agreement. However, if a judgment is taken, it is relatively final when all inputs have been weighed. This is a judgment with a capital “D”. Top-down choices are normally made faster. They are, though, accompanied by further debate and perhaps revision. The verdict is a lower case “d”. “In my HQ, the judgment is the starting point of debate”, one visiting commander to JWC explained.
(Shinners, 2017)
Figure 14 Deciding scale (Meyer, 2015)
Similarly, as with the feedback intersection, Meyer (2017) created an intersection of leadership cultures based on the third scale “Leading” and the fourth scale “Deciding” in her article “Being the Boss in Brussels, Boston, and Beijing”. It represents an intersection for 19 countries with four leadership culture quadrants (see Figure 15). In the first quadrant, consensual and egalitarian, it is advised to await that decision making lasts longer and entails numerous sessions and communication. During these sessions, the boss plays a role of a facilitator, not the decider. In the second quadrant, consensual and hierarchical, it is best to be patient and thorough while investing the time required to have every stakeholder on board. In the third quadrant, top-down and hierarchical, the boss switches his roles and that is needed to be recalled. Within this quadrant, it is also crucial to remember that people need to be aware of what they communicate since they might realize that an off-the-cuff remark may be regarded as a decision. In the last quadrant, top-down and egalitarian, it is a great to know that as soon as the decision has been reached, people should stay adaptable. Decisions are loosely defined and may be altered or reconsidered when required.
Figure 15 Leadership Cultures Intersection (Meyer, 2017)
Meyer (2015) references the fifth scale in her book as “Trusting,” and it tests how we maintain and create trust with one another at work (see Figure 16). Numerous researchers have explored this subject, including Roy Chua and Michael Morris. They produced a landmark article on the various methods to trust in Chinese and American environment which is a work Meyer drew her metric on (Meyer, 2014). Do we trust our heads, as Meyer defines a task-based approach, or our hearts, as Meyer describes a relationship-based approach? Via business-related practices, task-based cultures foster trust. Leaders are trusted because of their role, until they demonstrate otherwise. Accomplishments, proven abilities, and qualifications all help to build trust and confidence. Work partnerships are quickly established and terminated depending on the practicality of the case. Trust is founded on a higher, more intimate basis in relationship-based cultures. Workplace partnerships develop gradually over time. Investing in regular, intimate contact, common hours at the coffee machine, lengthy meals together, evening beverages, and family celebrations builds confidence. It necessitates interpersonal closeness as well as personal friendship. Another critical part of this continuum is how people invest their free time. Relationship-based cultures put time and effort into their partnerships. They would do it in order to win and keep their team's loyalty and confidence.
And to keep themselves open to everyone. In the task-based culture, it is simple to contact a long-distance counterpart to request a favor. The role takes precedence over the partnership.
However, the more relationship-oriented the recipient of the email is, the less probable the favor would be given.
Figure 16 Trusting scale (Meyer, 2015)
Meyer (2015) explains the sixth scale as “Scheduling,” and it shows us when we prioritize interactions or assignments affects how we view schedules and time (see Figure 17). Task-based cultures tend to operate in a sequential fashion. Project steps are approached sequentially, with one mission completed before starting the next. Without interruptions, do one thing at a time. The emphasis is on meeting the deadline and staying on track. The emphasis is on timeliness and organization over flexibility. Plan moves are approached in a fluid fashion in flexible time cultures, with projects shifting as opportunities arise. Many tasks are handled at once, and interruptions are tolerated. The emphasis is on adaptability, and flexibility takes precedence over organization. Relationships are more essential than assignments and deadlines. It is better to be late for anything than to break off a discussion. It is all too tempting for rigid time cultures to slip into stereotype mode and pass character judgments on flexible time cultures. However, this overlooks many of the advantages of flexible time, as well as the inefficiencies and missed opportunities that obedience to linear
time will cause. Sidebar discussions inside meetings are another source of conflict between cultures on this scale. While a rigid time thinker perceives them as disrespectful, a flexible time thinker sees them as taking advantage of a chance to get more tasks accomplished at once.
Figure 17 Scheduling scale (Meyer, 2015)
Meyer (2015) discusses the seventh scale, “Disagreeing,” which applies to an organization's tolerance to collective discussion and dispute, measuring it in terms of conflict (see Figure 18). The term “confrontation” in this context does not indicate hostility or negativity.
Confrontational cultures anticipate heated discussion. It reflects dialectic thought, in which opposition is the antithesis of the initial argument and the subsequent synthesis is the correct course of action by dialogue and debate. Debate or critique, even by subordinates, is inevitable and would have no detrimental effect on the person being challenged by position or feelings. The main term here is sachlichkeit, which is a German word, and it simply means
“objectivity,” but it often refers to the ability to distinguish one’s thoughts from the individual. If they question you, it indicates that they are involved. Cultures who shun conflict, on the other side, are uneasy with such a threat. Public opposition jeopardizes the respect and status needed to lead. This continuum is noteworthy since it is the only one on which Norway differs from its northern neighbors Denmark and the Netherlands, all of which are more confrontational in their differences. The educational standards of a country can also play a role in this. Growing up in a culture that emphasizes checking and progression or loss based on being correct or wrong instills in one the desire to protect one's status and take it negatively when the position is challenged.
Figure 18 Disagreeing scale (Meyer, 2015)
Meyer (2015) lists “Persuading” as the final and eighth scale, and it corresponds to the presentation of an argument (see Figure 19). Officers of principles-first cultures have been taught to formulate a hypothesis or complicated concept first before making a fact, argument,
or opinion. It is preferable to start a message or report with a theoretical statement before going on to a conclusion. The philosophical concepts that underpin each condition are highly regarded. With contrast, officers in an applications-first culture start with a fact, argument, or opinion and then apply definitions to back up or clarify the assertion if needed. Richard Nisbett, an American professor of social psychology, led the study into particular and comprehensive cognitive processes, with Meyer's work serving as the inductive component.
(Meyer, 2014). The easiest way to describe this is “Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF).” An executive summary or bullet points should be used at the start of a message or report.
Discussions are treated practically and concretely. In a business setting, theoretical or metaphysical debates are avoided.
Figure 19 Persuading scale (Meyer, 2015)
Erin Meyer’s Culture Map concept, which plots the nations represented within a team over all eight scales, may be a helpful tool for an international organization to recognize possible communication gaps and examine how national cultural differences can affect collaboration.
Her culture tool created many culture maps over the years (see Figure 20) and thus provided help to many organizations, one of which was NATO HQ (Shinners, 2017). Moreover, her and Hofstede’s work (1994) sparked a wave of reactions and inspired many in comparing different approaches to business culture.
Erin Meyer has written extensively on business culture in multinational corporations, identifying subcultures and providing suggestions about how to address cultural gaps in multinational corporations. Furthermore, the issue she raises is that as an organization becomes international, its personnel become globally scattered, losing sight of their shared values, beliefs, and expectations. This is a stage where Meyer and Hofstede’s methods collide again, and it is also the subject of the following chapter.
Figure 20 Culture Map of France, Germany China, and Japan (Meyer, 2015)