{"id":52958,"date":"2021-10-26T18:38:00","date_gmt":"2021-10-26T22:38:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=52958"},"modified":"2021-11-04T12:42:57","modified_gmt":"2021-11-04T16:42:57","slug":"the-culture-map-book","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/the-culture-map-book\/","title":{"rendered":"Erin Meyer’s The Culture Map\u2014Book Overview"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What is The Culture Map<\/a><\/em> about? What are Erin Meyer’s eight axes for measuring cultural differences<\/a>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In her book The Culture Map<\/em>, cultural communication expert Erin Meyer presents a framework you can use to analyze how cultures differ from yours as well as practical strategies to mitigate any cultural misunderstandings. She also explains why these cultural differences developed in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below is a brief overview of her key points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The Eight Ways to Measure Cultural Differences<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In an increasingly globalized world, understanding other cultures is an essential business skill. In her book The Culture Map<\/em>, Erin Meyer presents eight axes you can use as a framework to analyze these differences: Communication, Feedback, Thinking, Leadership, Decision-Making<\/a>, Trust, Disagreement, and Time Perception<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meyer positions countries on each axis, each of which represents a range of possible behavior between two extremes. Each country’s position represents the midpoint of acceptable behaviors in that country, which Meyer contends is enough to account for both individual and regional differences within a country. (Shortform note: Meyer bases these positions on anecdotes and personal experience. Her lack of outside research may be due to the difficulty of empirically measuring cultural differences: Cultural factors would influence any study methodology, so the study would be flawed.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By understanding both your own and another culture’s position on each axis, you can relate to each other better so that you can accomplish your business goals. You are also better able to evaluate others accurately: You learn which misunderstandings are due to cultural differences instead of incompetence. (Shortform note: The idea that you can’t evaluate a culture’s position on the axis independently is known as cultural relativity. Don’t confuse this with cultural relativism\u2014\u201cthe ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make judgments using the standards of one\u2019s own culture<\/a>.\u201d) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meyer visually represents the axes in a \u201cculture map.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

(Shortform note: Some reviewers find Meyer\u2019s culture map overly complicated and confusing. We\u2019ve modified and streamlined the culture map to make it easier to interpret and use. You can find Meyer\u2019s map by reading The Culture Map<\/em> or purchasing access to her mapping tool on her website<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this guide, we\u2019ll explain each axis, how these differences developed, and strategies you can use to mitigate any cultural differences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Axis #1: High-Context vs Low-Context Communication<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Meyer defines the two extremes of communication<\/em> as high-context and low-context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meyer defines low-context cultures as cultures where people communicate and receive messages at face value.<\/strong> The speaker explicitly states all relevant information because it\u2019s her responsibility to communicate her message clearly. In contrast, high-context cultures don\u2019t communicate at face value\u2014rather, you read between the lines<\/strong>. These people share cultural understandings about etiquette, so the speaker doesn\u2019t need to be explicit; the listener is responsible for decoding the underlying meaning. (Shortform note: Meyer uses the terms high- and low-context only to describe how people communicate messages. Their original usage was much broader<\/a>, encompassing views on relationships, territory, time, and more.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Meyer, language is one factor that shapes a culture\u2019s communication style<\/strong>. Higher-context languages share several features that make ambiguous statements more possible, including a low number of total words and a high number of words that can have multiple meanings. The opposite is true for lower-context cultures: Their languages have a high number of total words and fewer words that can have multiple meanings. English-speaking countries cluster at the low-context end of the axis, countries that speak Romance languages cluster in the middle, and Asian countries cluster toward the high-context end of the axis. (Shortform note: Meyer\u2019s assertion that language shapes culture is supported by the story of Korean Air<\/a>, who made in-air communications lower-context by switching their language from high-context Korean to low-context English.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The other defining factor is history: Low-context cultures tend to be younger and ethnically heterogeneous<\/strong>, so there are fewer cultural norms that are universally understood. In contrast, high-context cultures tend to have a long history and be ethnically homogeneous<\/strong>. As such, Meyer posits, they\u2019ve had more time to develop social norms<\/a> and unspoken rules of communication that are universally shared within the culture. (Shortform note: This isn\u2019t a hard-and-fast rule. Meyer considers India a high-context country. India has a long shared history, but it\u2019s also extremely diverse and uses English as a common language.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strategies for Communicating Across Cultures<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Meyer\u2019s strategies for communicating in lower-context cultures all involve speaking more explicitly than you might be comfortable with. Ask questions<\/strong> when you\u2019re unclear on the meaning and to ensure your message has been properly delivered. (Shortform note: Try, \u201cDo you have any questions?\u201d) Recap what was said<\/strong> at the end of the meeting and follow up with an email. (Shortform note: Email etiquette varies between cultures, but try following the email etiquette of the U.S<\/a>., the world’s lowest-context culture.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, Meyer\u2019s strategies for higher-context communication mostly involve interpreting the message and understanding your own unintentional hidden messages. Ask open-ended questions<\/strong> to clarify your understanding\u2014even in places you wouldn\u2019t normally think to, like scheduling. Pay attention to subtext<\/strong> by listening carefully and looking at body language<\/a>. (Shortform note: Just be careful. Body language differs among cultures<\/a>, and active listening may be too explicit for higher-context people to be comfortable with.) And explain why you\u2019re writing things down<\/strong>\u2014this may be viewed as a sign of distrust in higher-context cultures. (Shortform note: Alternatively, avoid writing this down unless absolutely necessary.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But according to Meyer, the most potential for miscommunication lies between two people from different high-context cultures<\/strong>: Both look for subtext, but the cultural norms by which that subtext is informed differ drastically. Ensure your team\u2019s success by having your team create<\/strong> a low-context communication method<\/strong>. Clearly articulating the communication method before you do any work will help prevent potential misunderstandings. (Shortform note: Meyer states that the team members need to understand why the low-context process exists, but she doesn\u2019t explicitly state why the team members need to create the communication method. Presumably, members need to help create the method so they fully understand what they need to do. If someone else creates the process, high-context individuals may still look for hidden messages into why they\u2019ve been asked to communicate this way.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Axis #2: Direct vs Indirect Negative Feedback <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Meyer defines the two extremes of feedback<\/em>, or evaluation, as direct<\/strong> and indirect negative feedback<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Meyer, people from cultures that prize direct negative feedback state negative<\/strong> feedback clearly and explicitly<\/strong>. In contrast, Meyer states that cultures that use indirect negative feedback tend to deliver their<\/strong> messages in a subtler manner<\/strong>, often couching these messages in positive affirmations<\/a> and using words to mitigate their feedback. But it\u2019s so subtle that the receiver might not register the feedback as negative at all. (Shortform note: Negative feedback has several benefits, such as potentially improving your argument<\/a>. Indirect feedback may be even more effective because you have to take more initiative to learn from and implement it<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strategies for Giving Feedback Across Cultures<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

When giving feedback, Meyer recommends some generally applicable strategies: First, explain how your culture normally provides feedback<\/strong> so that others can interpret your feedback in the way you intended. Second, don\u2019t try to imitate the other culture<\/strong>. As an outsider, you don\u2019t understand the subtle rules of etiquette every culture has or other factors (like hierarchical leadership) that complicate how cultures deliver feedback. (If you\u2019re in a direct negative feedback culture, you can try using one extra strengthening word, like \u201ctotally.\u201d) (Shortform note: Meyer repeats both these strategies throughout her book, suggesting that transparency and respectful imitation are essential cross-cultural business skills.) Finally, when you receive direct negative feedback, copy these cultures and view directness as a sign of respect<\/strong> instead of getting offended. (Shortform note: If you struggle with this, learn to cultivate a growth mindset<\/a>.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A culture\u2019s place on the communication spectrum complicates effective feedback delivery. <\/strong>For example, the U.S., the U.K., and Canada present unique challenges because they\u2019re low-context cultures that fall in the middle of the feedback spectrum. In these cultures, Meyer recommends that you make your positive feedback as clear as your negative feedback<\/strong>, finding even the smallest element to praise truthfully. And time your feedback strategically<\/strong> by always expressing your positive feedback first and maintaining a 50-50 ratio of positive to negative feedback. (Shortform note: Your employees may still struggle even if you follow these strategies: After all, Americans may prefer a 80-20 ratio of positive to negative feedback<\/a>.)  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, If you\u2019re in a high-context culture with indirect negative feedback, Meyer suggests three main strategies. First, deliver your feedback gradually<\/strong> so your subordinate can piece the picture together on their own. Secondly, take the focus off the feedback<\/strong> by taking the subordinate out to lunch\u2014making feedback the crux of the conversation intensifies it. Finally, don\u2019t mention the negative<\/strong>. By praising only the positive, your subordinate will infer your negative feedback. For example, praise the thing they did well in the first half of the meeting that they struggled with in the second half. (Shortform note: If you\u2019re not confident in your ability to follow these strategies effectively, deliver your feedback in writing<\/a> instead, which may be more comfortable for high-context, indirect-feedback cultures.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Axis #3: Empirical vs Theoretical Cultures<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Meyer first divides how cultures think<\/em> into two categories: holistic (or dialectical) and specific (or analytical). She then divides how Western cultures think into two extremes on her axis: empirical (applications-first) and theoretical (principles-first).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dialectical vs Analytical Thinking<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In cultures that think dialectically, people tend to focus on the overall situation.<\/strong> Instead of focusing on individual elements, they emphasize the relationships between<\/em> individual elements. In business, this focus on relationships is evident in longer responses to questions (because they\u2019re focused on the big picture, people might present related information first before giving their final answers). Meyer suggests that most Asian cultures think dialectically because of the Chinese philosophies that influenced them.<\/strong> These philosophies tend to value balance between individual elements. Furthermore, they consider objects in context instead of considering the object independently. (Shortform note: Alternatively, Asian countries may tend toward dialectical thinking because of their high-context communication styles<\/a>. Since high-context cultures have few explicit communication rules, these cultures consider many factors at once when determining how to act. As such they\u2019re far more used to encountering contradictions\u2014which results in a greater acceptance of contradictions and a tendency to think dialectically.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In cultures that think analytically, people tend to focus on<\/strong> the individual element or action<\/strong>. Unlike dialectical cultures, they de-emphasize the surrounding circumstances. (Shortform note: In business, you might see this in how people from these cultures evaluate risk<\/a>\u2014they \u201cexpect…the world to be stable\u201d since they focus on only one element.) Meyer argues that the analytical thinking<\/a> of Western countries derives from Western philosophy, which assesses objects independently without necessarily considering them in the overall context. (Shortform note: Alternatively, the \u201csocial orientation hypothesis\u201d suggests that cultures that prize independence tend to think analytically, while cultures that prize interdependence tend to think dialectically<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Theoretical vs Empirical Thinking<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Meyer also divides analytical Western cultures into two types: theoretical and empirical. Theoretical thinkers trend toward deductive reasoning when they persuade\u2014<\/strong>so they\u2019ll first formulate a general hypothesis from which they deduce a conclusion. In business, a cultural pattern of theoretical thinking translates to a heavier emphasis on the reasons behind a problem. Conversely, empirical thinkers use inductive reasoning<\/strong>\u2014they look at the data first and then they draw conclusions. In business, a cultural pattern of empirical thinking translates to a heavier emphasis on applying practical solutions to problems. (Shortform note: Both reasoning styles have their benefits, such as when teaching a language. Inductive approaches may be better for learning grammatical structures that repeat, but inconsistent grammatical patterns benefit from more deductive approaches<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meyer argues that several factors influence how a culture thinks, notably their education and philosophy<\/strong>. Empirical Anglo-Saxon countries were heavily influenced by the philosophers Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon, who popularized empirical thinking. (Shortform note: Despite their similar names, Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon were total strangers who lived centuries apart.) Conversely, theoretical Latin European countries still teach children to persuade with a three-step Hegelian method (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) that the children grow to expect as adults. (Shortform note: Interestingly, philosopher Friedrich Hegel didn\u2019t enumerate the method into 3 steps.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strategies for Presenting Information Across Cultures<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Meyer suggests several ways to alter your presentation style to convince different kinds of audiences with different ways of thinking: <\/p>\n\n\n\n