Tag: cultural values

Cultural Values and the Negotiation Table: Unlocking the Impact of Individualism vs. Collectivism, Hierarchy, and Uncertainty Avoidance

Posted on by Leave a comment

Negotiation, the art of reaching agreements, is not merely a transactional exchange of offers and counteroffers; it’s a complex dialect of cultural values, beliefs, and norms. 

Understanding how cultural values influence negotiation outcomes is essential for achieving results in the global arena. 

So, let’s take a look at the impact of cultural values such as individualism versus collectivism, hierarchy, and uncertainty avoidance on negotiation strategies and outcomes.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Welcome to the boardroom.

On one side of the table: a U.S. company; on the other: a Japanese firm. 

While discussing a joint venture, their priorities differ, based on their individualist versus collectivist values.

The American negotiators emphasize their company’s strengths and seek to secure the best possible deal for their organization. 

The Japanese negotiators prioritize building trust, fostering mutual respect, and ensuring alignment with their company’s broader goals and values.

One of the most fundamental cultural dimensions impacting negotiation is the degree of individualism versus collectivism within a society. 

In individualistic cultures like the United States, negotiation is often approached from a competitive standpoint, with an emphasis on individual goals, autonomy, and personal achievement. 

Negotiators may prioritize their own interests and seek to maximize their outcomes, even at the expense of others.

Conversely, in collectivistic cultures such as Japan or China, negotiation is viewed through a communal lens, emphasizing harmony, cooperation, and group cohesion. 

Negotiators may focus on building relationships, consensus-building, and ensuring the well-being of the collective. 

In these cultures, concessions may be made to preserve group harmony and maintain long-term relationships.

Hierarchy

The boardroom, round two.

On one side: a German company; on the other: a Brazilian company.

While discussing a partnership agreement, their priorities differ based on their views of hierarchy.

The German negotiators expect a collaborative approach, with decisions made based on merit and expertise rather than hierarchical considerations. 

The Brazilian negotiators defer to senior executives and prioritize building rapport and respect for authority.

Hierarchy, or the degree of social stratification within a society, significantly influences negotiation dynamics. 

In hierarchical cultures like those found in many Asian and Latin American countries, respect for authority, status, and seniority plays a central role in negotiation interactions. 

Negotiators may defer to higher-ranking individuals, and decisions may be made by those in positions of authority.

In contrast, in egalitarian cultures such as those in Northern Europe or Australia, negotiation tends to be more egalitarian, with an emphasis on equality, meritocracy, and consensus-building. 

Negotiators may engage in open dialogue, challenge assumptions, and seek input from all stakeholders, regardless of rank or status.

Uncertainty Avoidance

The boardroom, round three.

On one side: a Swedish company; on the other: a Saudi Arabian company.

While discussing a business partnership, their priorities differ based on their level of uncertainty avoidance.

The Swedish negotiators are more open to exploring creative solutions and adapting to changing circumstances. 

The Saudi negotiators prefer clear agreements, detailed contracts, and a structured approach to minimize uncertainty and risk.

Uncertainty avoidance, or the degree to which a culture tolerates ambiguity and uncertainty, shapes negotiation outcomes. 

In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, such as those found in many Asian and Middle Eastern countries, negotiators may prefer clear rules, detailed contracts, and predictable outcomes. 

Negotiation strategies may focus on minimizing risk and ensuring stability.

Conversely, in cultures with low uncertainty avoidance, such as those in the United States or Northern Europe, negotiators may be more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty. 

Negotiation approaches may be more flexible, adaptive, and open to innovative solutions, with less emphasis on rigid rules or formalities.

Come to the Negotiation Table Prepared

Cultural values – particularly individualism vs collectivism, hierarchy, and uncertainty avoidance – play a profound role in shaping negotiation outcomes, influencing everything from communication styles to decision-making processes. 

By understanding and respecting cultural differences, negotiators can adapt their strategies and approaches to navigate diverse cultural landscapes successfully.

Consumers & Culture: How Can Cultural Values Be Utilized To Encourage Ethical Consumption?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you patronize companies whose ethical values mirror your own?

Do you consider environmental impact when purchasing a product or service? 

Last week, we discussed how green marketing can cater to different cultures.

In this same vein, the research we’re looking at this week identifies ways in which cultural values influence ethical consumption.

But first, let’s define what ‘ethical consumption’ actually is.

What is ‘Ethical Consumption’?

The study itself defines ethical consumption as involving 

“the rational use of resources, consideration of environmental impacts, and assertion of consumer rights in modern consumption patterns. Ethical consumption embodies social responsibility that is driven by an individual’s conscience and broader ethical consciousness.”

“the rational use of resources, consideration of environmental impacts, and assertion of consumer rights in modern consumption patterns. Ethical consumption embodies social responsibility that is driven by an individual’s conscience and broader ethical consciousness.”

In other words, your dollar is a vote cast on the way you’d like the world to be.

The Study

Engaging 938 subjects who were invited to participate in an online survey, this study unraveled the impact of diverse cultural orientations on two distinct dimensions: eco-friendly and socioeconomic-oriented consumption. 

Researchers asked themselves how vertical individualism, vertical collectivism, horizontal individualism, and horizontal collectivism might shape ethical consumption patterns?

Through text messages and emails, they reached out to individuals pre-registered with a marketing research company, tapping into the diverse perspectives of consumer panels. 

The study set out to examine the relationships between cultural values and ethical consumption in order to understand consumer behaviors.

Findings

The findings, revealed through structural equation modeling with EQS 6, painted a distinctive picture. 

Vertical individualism emerged as a silent observer, having no statistically significant effect on eco-friendly consumption.

This suggests that cultures emphasizing autonomy through competition and personal achievement may not align with eco-friendly ethical consumption. 

In contrast, horizontal individualism, horizontal collectivism, and vertical collectivism positively impacted both eco-friendly and socioeconomic-oriented consumption.

HI, with its focus on uniqueness and social equality, and VC, emphasizing sacrifice for group purposes, were associated with a propensity for consuming natural diets. 

HC, valuing equality and social harmony, also played a significant role in fostering eco-friendly consumption.

The study also highlighted the positive correlation between ethical consumption behaviors and consumer happiness. 

Specifically, cultures with strong HC tendencies exhibited robust eco-friendly ethical consumption behavior, indicating a link between cultural values and happiness. 

VC, HI, and VI cultures were also associated with eco-friendly consumption, though to varying degrees.

The study concludes by emphasizing the diversity within cultural frameworks, cautioning against oversimplifying a country’s culture into individualist or collectivist categories. 

It advocates for the utility of the two-dimensional cultural framework in understanding cultural diversity.

The Theory of a Universal Structure of Human Values

Posted on by Leave a comment

What values do you consider “collectivist”? How about “individualist”?

If you had to explain your own values, under which headline would they fall?

This study examines the values of American, Indian, and Japanese populations. 

The intent of this cross-cultural research was to measure the individualist, collectivist, and mixed values in each culture to see where they fell.

First off, what constitutes an “individualist” versus a “collectivist” value?

The Values

The researchers used the theory of a universal structure of human values, proposed by Schwartz and Bilsky in 1987 (revised in 1992).

Each value is labeled individualist, collectivist, or mixed and are as follows:

  • Power: Attainment of social status, dominance, and control. (Individualist)
  • Achievement: Personal success and competence. (I)
  • Hedonism: Pleasure and enjoyment. (I)
  • Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and a thrilling life. (I)
  • Self-Direction: Independent thought, action, and autonomy. (I)
  • Benevolence: Preserving and improving the welfare of others. (Collectivist)
  • Tradition: Respect for and acceptance of cultural customs and traditions. (C)
  • Conformity: Restraint of behaviors to maintain social order and harmony. (C)
  • Universalism: Understanding, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all. (Mixed)
  • Security: Stability of self, relationships, and society. (M)
  • Spirituality: Finding meaning, inner harmony, and having a spiritual life. (M)

These values encompass a range of motivations and goals that individuals may prioritize in their lives.

The Results

Along with these value types were subcategories of value traits. 

And of these value traits, Americans, Indians, and Japanese participants were compatible in 14 of the 22 individualist values.

Of the collectivist values, participants were compatible in 13 out of 15.

Lastly, of the mixed values, there was compatibility in 9 out of 15 (and absolutely none regarding spiritual values).

The American participants, as expected, scored high on individualist values and mixed types. They had a preference for standing out from the crowd. 

Indians, on the other hand, were drawn to collectivist and mixed values. They believed in the power of unity. 

The Japanese students threw a bit of a curveball. They didn’t follow any clear pattern of individualism or collectivism.

This study suggests that no country – including the United States, India, or Japan – can be neatly labeled as just individualist or collectivist. Each has a melting pot of values.

Independent variables like gender, race, income, or media usage may also help us understand why individualistic and collectivist orientations coexist in the same cultures.

‘Simpatia’ and Spontaneous Helping: What Values Contribute to a Culture of Volunteering?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you find time to volunteer?

For what reason?

Is it something personally important to you? Or is it something that your culture values?

We’ve been talking about prosocial behavior in culture over the last couple of weeks, including donating money.

This week, we’ll look at what values might contribute to a culture of volunteering.

Spontaneous Helping

When you think of volunteering, you probably think of giving your time and energy regularly to an organization – working at a food bank, helping your church bake sale, participating in big brother/sister, etc.

But there are different forms of volunteering.

One form – spontaneous helping – was the focus of a study on cross-cultural differences in helping strangers.

Research was conducted in big cities – New York, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, etc. – of 23 countries.

Non-emergency situations were set up, in order to assess how frequently strangers might proactively come to a person’s aid.

These situations included a stranger dropping a pen, a stranger with an injured leg trying to pick up magazines, and a blind person crossing the street.

These three measures resulted in a relatively stable helping rate per city.

But the findings across cities varied greatly.

Brazilians vs. Malaysians

The highest helping rate – 93% – was found in the city of Rio de Janeiro.

This finding is in line with past studies of cultural norms in Spanish and Latin American countries.

Such studies have highlighted the cultural value of “simpatia” in such cultures – i.e. a demonstrated politeness and helpfulness to strangers and a proactive concern for others.

The lowest helping rate – 40% – was found in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Being that both Brazil and Malaysia are collectivist cultures, this result contradicts the theory that collectivist societies might have a higher helping rate than individualist societies, due to their social orientation.

In reality, the results were all over the map in relation to collectivism vs. individualism and helping, with cities in some collectivist countries averaging higher helping rates – like San Jose, Costa Rica (91.33%) and Lilongwe, Malawi (86%) – while others had low rates – like Singapore (48%) and Sofia, Bulgaria (57%).

Conversely, some individualist cultures were high on the scale – like Vienna (81%) and Copenhagen (77.67%) – while others were low – like New York City (44.67%) and Amsterdam (53.67%).

Economic Productivity

One curious finding was the inverse relationship between helping and the country’s economic productivity.

That is, helping occurred less on the whole in wealthier countries than in poorer ones.

This might suggest that some cultures show more care for each other out of necessity.

Next week, we’ll talk more about different avenues of volunteering and their cultural relevance.

Culture and Self: How Self-Esteem is Based on the Fulfillment of Dominant Cultural Values 

Posted on by Leave a comment

Does one’s culture influence self-regard?

This article by CNRS (Délégation Paris Michel-Ange) suggests that it actually informs it.

How?

Everyone bases their success or level of achievement on the dominant values of their culture.

Even if a person’s personal values differ from the norm, their self-esteem is often based on fulfilling cultural values.

Let’s see why.

The Survey

Fulfilling one’s personal values has long been viewed in psychology as the greatest influence on self-esteem.

But that may not be the case.

A global study, conducted by social psychologist, Maja Becker, at the CLLE (Laboratoire Cognition, Langue, Langages, Ergonomie) department of the Université de Toulouse II-Le Mirail, surveyed 5,000 teenagers and young adults from 19 different countries.

200 young people from countries in Eastern and Western Europe, South America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East took part.

Questions in the survey covered personal and cultural values and to what degree they impacted the students’ self-esteem.

Key Factors of Cultural Influence

What the survey found was that four key factors drove self-esteem in all cultures:

  • Earning social status
  • Fulfilling one’s duty
  • Controlling one’s life
  • Benefitting others

The study also found that the students’ own personal values had little to do with their level of self-esteem.

Rather, self-esteem is measured against our ability to fulfill dominant cultural values.

Fulfillment of Values = Self-Esteem

Each culture places different degrees of importance on these four factors.

For instance, those from Middle Eastern, African, or Asian cultures that value tradition and conformity might place more importance on doing one’s duty and benefitting others.

Thus, individuals in such cultures derive their self-esteem from demonstrating this fulfillment of duties.

And those from Western cultures whose values lie in individualism and freedom might place more importance on controlling one’s life.

Thus, individuals in such cultures derive their self-esteem from demonstrating such control.

Even if one doesn’t personally subscribe to their own culture’s values, they are still influenced by them on a deeply personal level.

Subtly, societal expectations can make or break an individual’s psyche and self-worth.

Next week, we’ll discuss how a culture’s time perspective might also influence self-esteem.

Tranquilo, Maktoob, and Hakuna Matata: Words to Live by in Different Cultures

Posted on by Leave a comment

Each culture perceives the meaning of life differently.

This can come across in its turns of phrase.

Last week, we discussed a cross-cultural study about well-being and how the term isn’t universal.

Like many complex terms, well-being means different things to different cultures, based on each culture’s values.

Today, I’d like to take a look at how our language – or our turns of phrase – often exemplify our cultural values.

Tranquilo in Colombia

“Tranquilo” – or “relax” – is a bit of a mantra in Colombia.

In a Washington Post article, James Bargent describes it as:

“a refrain which can drive you into an impotent rage, or it can remind you that life’s troubles are rarely terminal.”

Often ranking as one of the happiest nations in the world, Colombians generally live by this maxim, which may partially be based upon the uncertainty of life in the country.

If you don’t build up great expectations, you don’t become upset when your plans are upset.

Instead, the culture wraps itself up in family and friends and appreciates life slowly at its own pace.

Maktoob in Arabic Cultures

Meaning “that which is written,” maktoob translates to destiny or fate.

In Arabic culture, when something goes right or wrong, you might be told with a shrug that it is “maktoob.”

With our destiny already pre-determined by God, things happen to us and are out of our hands.

This external locus of control allows Arabic cultures to attribute both their successes and struggles in life to God’s will.

Such a perspective can give one comfort that everything that happens was meant to happen.

Hakuna Matata

What a wonderful phrase.

You may know it from Disney’s The Lion King, but the phrase, “hakuna matata,” was taken from Swahili culture.

It roughly translates to “there are no troubles.”

The phrase is often used as a response to a greeting or as a condolence.

“Hakuna matata” highlights the laidback attitude of Swahili culture but also its emphasis on personal and societal well-being.

These three turns of phrase show us a deeper aspect of each culture and where their values lie.

Can you think of a phrase in your own language that exemplifies your culture?

Culture in Crisis, Part II: How Cultural Values Impact Communal Response to Trigger Events

Posted on by Leave a comment

We’ve discussed how cultural values can predict how a community will respond to crisis.

In a continuation of last week’s post, we’ll look at the conclusion of the 2007 study by Melinda Rene Miller, titled “The Human Element: A Study of the Effects of Culture on Crisis Reactions.”

Hurricane Katrina

With the crisis of Hurricane Katrina as the backdrop, the study looked at two communities within the disaster area and their responses to it.

The values of the New Orleans Ninth Ward and the Mississippi Gulf Coast communities differ, and the study sought to draw strong correlations between these preexisting cultural values and corresponding reactions to determine if community crisis reactions can be predicted based on culture.

The study examined each communities’ demographics, communication styles, association with authorities, relationship to the environment, group unity and community roles, amongst other aspects, to infer their values regarding each category.

Key Differences in Response

The study found key differences in response to Hurricane Katrina between Louisiana’s Ninth Ward and the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

Let’s look at Louisiana’s Ninth Ward:

  • Community Roles Analysis: A community roles analysis showed preexisting beliefs in the inefficiency of leaders, which led to internal disputes and an inability to make unified decisions. This resulted in mixed messages, distrust, confusion, and an inability to execute a crisis plan. Additionally, many police and emergency services officers reportedly abandoned their posts.
  • Demographic Analysis: Evacuation plans failed to include segments of the population, including the ill, those with pets, and those without vehicles or places to go. The demographic analysis showed 30 percent of the Ninth Ward was disabled and over 30 percent didn’t own a car. Many lived below the poverty line and so had no emergency savings to evacuate. Further, personal relationships (even with pets) and fear of change were ingrained in Ninth Ward culture. The paper deems that the culture in the community was “every man for himself”; the onus was on the government to fix things and building back the community together was not considered a personal responsibility.
  • Communication Style Analysis: Many in the ward ignored the evacuation order. The communication style analysis showed that though the community values orders to some degree, having been repeatedly given this evacuation order before unnecessarily, they did not believe authorities and thought the storm would blow over. They also feared looters more than the storm.

Those in the Mississippi Gulf Coast:

  • Community Roles Analysis: Although the government response to the Mississippi Gulf Coast community was equally slow, the people began cleanup on their own. Their values include a can-do attitude, resulting in community rebuilding that was 21 percent more expedited than in the Ninth Ward.  The police force and firefighters were on duty around-the-clock, as dictated by the local government.
  • Demographic Analysis: In the study, there is little mention of the impact of demographics on the response. It would be interesting to see these differences fleshed out, as the wealth and health of the community significantly impacts its ability to respond.
  • Communication Style Analysis: To prevent looting, the local government controlled supplies and resources, in order to distribute them equally to citizens. In rebuilding of the area, the government asked the community to be mindful of elevation maps and received support and excitement about the restructuring rather than the resistance experienced in the Ninth Ward.

The study explains why knowledge about cultural values is valuable in this context:

“Being able to make the claim that a community’s culture has a greater effect on the public’s reaction to a crisis trigger event than the event itself, will aid future research in focusing more on creating a list of cultural aspects that match with crisis response strategies.”

The Way Forward

The conclusion drawn from this study is that knowing a culture and its values provides a wealth of information that can be applied to a crisis response strategy customized to that culture’s values. 

Consider the most recent global pandemic.

Culture influenced the various outcomes of different countries and communities around the world during the COVID crisis.

The reactions to supply rationing, the degree of adherence to face mask rules and social distancing, the acceptance of or reluctance to vaccination – and the resulting outcomes of such actions/inactions – all of this has roots in each nation’s culture and its values.

Cross-cultural research into the varying cultural responses and their outcomes to the COVID crisis, and other similar large-scale crises, could greatly aid organizations and governments in creating more effective response strategies customized to different cultural pockets in a nation – and to the nation as a whole.

Culture in Crisis, Part I: How Cultural Values Impact Communal Response to Trigger Events

Posted on by Leave a comment

Fight, flight, or freeze: these are three common human responses when one is under threat.

Each individual will respond to crises in a different way.

But does our culture influence how we, as a community, respond?

Think NYC’s response to 9/11 or Japan’s response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

From terrorism to natural disasters to global pandemics, communities and nations often respond in different ways to trigger events, based on their own cultural values.

Let’s take a look at one example.

The Amish

A school shooting occurred in an Amish community on October 2, 2006. Five young girls were killed.

Amish values include forgiveness, living righteously, and hating the sin and not the sinner, and this was reflected in their response to the trigger event. 

As Melinda Rene Miller’s paper, titled “The Human Element: A Study of the Effects of Culture on Crisis Reactions,” notes, revenge is not a part of Amish culture.

In mourning the victims of the tragedy, the community also mourned the shooter and embraced his family. 

They donated money to the killer’s widow and children and attended his funeral.

Sociologist Donald Kraybill who co-authored a book on the tragedy spoke on the power of Amish forgiveness, saying, 

“Several families, Amish families who had buried their own daughters just the day before were in attendance [at the killer’s burial service], and they hugged the widow and hugged other members of the killer’s family.”

Other cultures might respond to this type of crisis with a need for action, through new laws or regulations; a need for revenge or justice, through an investigation and public trial; and/or a plea for monetary donations for the community to recover.

None of these approaches would have lent themselves to the values of Amish culture.

The response of unity and emphasis on religion and humanity’s purpose on earth correlated with their values.

Behavioral and Attitudinal Reactions

As mentioned in the intro, everyone reacts to crises differently. 

Miller’s 2007 study set out to determine if, and to what degree, cultural values impact group response to trigger events.

The paper’s abstract proposes:

“While each individual person within a given community will react to a potential crisis situation in their individual ways, as a whole, their reactions will never vary too greatly, as their behaviors and attitudes are largely based upon their learned cultural values.”

Next week, we’ll delve into the results of this study, surrounding varied outcomes in communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

“Time is Money”: Monochrons and Time Perception

Posted on by Leave a comment

A German manager was sent to Honduras to monitor a factory for his company.

Every single day, the factory workers showed up a half-hour late.

He held a meeting with the workers and brought this issue up, expecting to see some changes.

Nothing.

He created an incentive for being on time, offering a raise at year’s end to those who were punctual.

Nothing.

He implemented a sliding scale of punishment for tardiness, with a three-strike rule.

Nothing.

He laid down the law and fired a worker who was exceptionally late on a regular basis.

Still, the next day, workers did not punch in on time.

No matter how often he insisted that they be punctual, nothing changed.

He complained to his Honduran co-manager about this issue, and she shrugged, saying, “They may be late, but at least they show up. That, in and of itself, is rare.”

This is where monochrons and polychrons butt heads, and the frustration is very real.

Last week, we touched on the differences between monochronic and polychronic cultures.

This post will go into deeper detail about what to expect from monochronic employees or managers.

What to Expect from a Monochron

As the above example shows, monochrons – whose cultures are prominently found in Northern Europe, North America, and parts of Asia – are time-sensitive.

Time is strictly divided: there is a time for fun and a time for work.

As Project Management Institute describes it, monochrons treat time as:

“a commodity of high value, as necessary as or perhaps even more important than satisfaction, good work, and relationships.”

Time is as tangible as any other commodity, as the phrase, “Time is money,” suggests.

Time can be wasted. It can be saved. It can be killed. It can be lost. It can won.

This perspective of time results in monochrons having a stricter and more stressful relationship with the clock and, as such, they try to use their time effectively, often focusing on completing one task at a time.

As studies show, doing so is actually a more productive use of time than multitasking.

Studies indicate that multitasking is less efficient because we are less focused, resulting in shallower learning and lower achievement and productivity. 

In fact, one study showed that only 2.5 percent of people are effective multitaskers.

The fact that monochronic cultures eschew multitasking for a more focused approach indicates that they are instinctively making the most effective use of time.

A monochron’s linear thinking and proclivity to strict schedules, with a focus on one event following another (think a timetable or meeting agenda, etc.), exemplifies this.

Get It Done

Monochrons emphasize getting things done.

Punctuality. Precision. Productivity.

These are the keys to success in a monochronic culture.

Managing time to use it more efficiently results in greater productivity and, thus, greater success.

So, here’s a pro tip if you are attending a meeting with an international colleague: understand their time perspective and meet their expectations.

If they are from a monochronic culture, arrive early, be prepared, and adhere to the agenda.

Analogies: Understanding Culture Through Powerful Mental Models

Posted on by 1 Comment

You are a manager in a foreign culture. You look at everything through your cultural lens.

Workplace behaviors are strange. Your colleagues’ habits seem irrational.

You feel like a visitor at the zoo, a spectator observing everyone.

In actuality, you are in their habitat; not the other way around. You are the odd one out, behaving according to your “strange” cultural norms and values in their culture.

You are the monkey in the zoo.

This is an example of an analogy: a powerful image that enables you to adapt your mental model to the reality of your environment or situation.

Last week, we talked about German manager, Marie, and her struggle working in a French office.

It was an analogy – the French office is like a royal court – that assisted her in adapting her frame of interpretation.

Why do analogies work?

Because they familiarize unfamiliar situations, helping us form new mental models to confront the unknown.

Analogies Reshape Mental Models

Schemes, representations, and images form the mental models used to perceive and understand the world around us.

These are largely based on past experience, education, and training.

The mental models we’ve developed provide shortcuts in decision-making, allowing us to make decisions quickly and efficiently without necessarily having all the details at our fingertips.

Because we don’t have all the details, mental models abstract reality; they are biased. They make the real world more simplistic than it actually is.

Despite significant experience or education to back our mental models, at some point, they are usually wrong in one way or another.

What’s worse is mental models are deeply rooted and slow – if not impossible – to change.

Analogies, however, make that change easier.

By “tricking” our brains into seeing something that previously seemed concrete (office behaviors, for instance) in a new light (viewing French companies like royal courts), we are able to draw different connections and conclusions than our previous mental model allowed, thus arriving at new decisions that more adequately address the reality of the environment.

Making the Unfamiliar Familiar

Unknown social constructs are reshaped by analogies into a picture you can comprehend.

The fresh perspective from this corrected mental model will allow you to make more rational decisions relative to the social constructs of the culture.

There are, however, limits to analogies. Like anything, they aren’t perfect.

But a good analogy that accurately represents a cultural dynamic that doesn’t align with your own is always an improvement on the mental model you’ve brought with you from abroad.

Trying to fit another’s culture into your own is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

So, how do you create good analogies?

Next week, we’ll talk about how Geert Hofstede’s dimensions can help.