In the realm of communication, it’s essential to differentiate between low-context and high-context cultures. Low-context cultures, such as those in the Netherlands or the United Kingdom, value straightforward, clear, and explicit communication. In contrast, high-context cultures, like India, rely on a shared understanding and non-verbal cues. For instance, in Hindi, the word ‘kal’ can mean both ‘tomorrow’ and ‘yesterday,’ depending on the context. To grasp the intended meaning, one must consider the entire sentence and interpret the nuances beyond the literal words.

When working in multicultural teams, adopting low-context communication processes can help prevent misunderstandings and conflicts. However, this approach may inadvertently convey distrust to high-context team members, who value implicit understanding and trust. For instance, insisting on written documentation—a hallmark of professionalism in low-context cultures—might imply a lack of confidence in their colleagues’ reliability. To navigate this, it’s crucial to establish a mutually agreed-upon way of working that respects everyone’s cultural preferences. This agreed-upon WoW should be clearly communicated and understood by all and there should be no confusion as to why certain behavior will be the norm going forward.

The evaluation scale is closely tied to the topic of feedback. In my previous blog post titled ‘Feedback: Your Gateway to Growth and Success,’ I briefly emphasized the importance of cultural awareness when collecting feedback from colleagues. For example, a Dutch person tends to be very direct and rarely assigns a top rating (such as ‘exceeds expectations’). On the other hand, someone from India might be more inclined to provide positive feedback, even if it means not highlighting areas for improvement. Erin Meyer highlights that what is considered constructive in one culture may be viewed as destructive in another.

At one end of the evaluation scale, we have direct negative feedback, and at the other end, we have indirect negative feedback.

Cultures located on the left of the scale tend to be very familiar with collecting and providing direct (often negative) feedback. When sharing any form of feedback—whether good or bad—they do so with complete honesty, without holding back or beating around the bush. Shortly after arriving in The Netherlands, I was told that Dutch people are extremely direct, and after living in the country for 3+ years, I can attest to this fact. Dutch and similar cultures welcome debates and disagreements, perceiving them as positive signs, while silence may be regarded as a negative sign.

Cultures located on the far right of the scale, such as Indian people, are less accustomed to direct negative feedback. They tend to avoid it, and only if absolutely necessary, will they provide it gently and often very diplomatically. Unlike Dutch people, who wouldn’t hesitate to give criticism in a public setting, Indian culture tends to handle such situations more delicately.

However, it’s worth sharing that I encountered a contrasting event in the past. During a call with three colleagues from India, one of them, a recently joined junior team member, struggled to meet the team’s expectations. At one point, the discussion switched from English to their native language. Within seconds, the conversation became heated. Although I couldn’t understand the language being spoken, it was evident that the two senior engineers were providing direct negative feedback to the junior newcomer. In her book, Erin Meyer acknowledges this behavior and points out that ‘it’s not unheard of for an Indian boss to bark criticism at their staff in a way that shocks and silences any Europeans within earshot. But as a foreigner, you should not try this.’

The leading scale exists to help you understand different leadership styles.

On the leading scale, a distinction is made between two different leadership styles: egalitarian and hierarchical.

As the name suggests, hierarchical leadership is based on a hierarchy where the presence of a boss is essential. In most cases, the boss will issue orders and expect the team to submit to them without any questions asked.

In contrast, egalitarian leadership depicts more of a flat structure where everyone is considered equal. In egalitarian cultures, it is perfectly normal for a line manager to be challenged by their subordinates. In these cultures, everyone has an opinion, and each opinion carries a specific weight.

When I was working in South Africa, I was primarily exposed to the hierarchical leadership style. Reflecting on some of my consulting projects, there was invariably one person calling the shots, often with a fancy title. When this leader said “jump,” the team’s typical response was a simple “how high?” A potential risk of this approach is that decisions might be driven more by individual perspectives than by those of the team. While this risk can be mitigated if the person in charge is exceptionally knowledgeable and experienced, the danger of one-sided decision-making persists, potentially leading to blind spots.

Upon my arrival in the Netherlands, I first encountered an egalitarian form of leadership. Although I observed several individuals in authoritative positions who were prepared to make tough decisions, they almost always sought input from their subordinates first, engaging in open dialogue. After gathering a range of opinions, they were able to make informed decisions and accept the consequences, whether good or bad. This leadership style can be very effective, provided that the person in charge accepts the responsibility of making the final decision. If this responsibility is not acknowledged, it can result in delayed decision-making, adversely affecting the team as they may feel their progress is being stifled. From my personal experience, coming from South Africa, it can also be somewhat frustrating when every new idea must be discussed at every departmental level, leading to prolonged efforts to gain consensus.

When examining my own personal Culture Map, you will notice that I have indicated that Dutch people are extremely egalitarian, whereas Indian people are extremely hierarchical. Somewhere in the middle of the scale, I have plotted British people based on my interactions with my boss who happens to be from the UK.

Therefore, when working with Indian colleagues, it’s important to remember the type of leadership style they are accustomed to. They might very well be used to a person in charge who calls all the shots. This explains why they tend to be quiet in certain settings; they “know their place” and want to show their respect to the leader by keeping quiet and doing what they are told.

In a Dutch corporate setting, you can expect quite the opposite. Here, it is quite normal for any employee, junior or senior, to challenge instructions from the person in charge and give their brutally honest opinion about the topic at hand. In fact, in Dutch culture, it is a good sign when matters are debated because it shows that you have considered different angles, which will likely lead to the best possible outcome. What I find extremely positive about the Dutch arguments that I have witnessed is that everyone is always respectful of one another, and no one talks down to anybody. Although no one really cares who the boss is, they respect everyone and treat everyone equally.

In her book, Erin Meyer points out that “events that took place thousands of years ago continue to influence the cultures in which individuals are raised and formed.” To support her statement, she notes that in some religions, such as Protestantism, the individual speaks directly to God rather than through intermediaries like the priest, the bishop, or the pope. This illustrates why societies where Protestant religions predominate tend to be more egalitarian than those dominated by, for example, Catholicism.

The well-known saying “Trust is earned, not given” applies to any cultural setting and the following section will hopefully explain why. In this section, we’ll delve into the two fundamental types of trust—cognitive trust and affective trust—and explore how they shape interactions within different workplace settings and countries.

1. Cognitive trust

Cognitive trust, as the name suggests, originates from the mental processes involved in knowing, learning, and understanding. It is earned when people have confidence in your ability to accomplish tasks effectively. The more consistent you are in completing assigned tasks, the more reliable you become, leading to increased cognitive trust within any workplace setting.

Common examples of countries that operate based on this type of trust system include the United States and Switzerland, where the motto is “business is business.”

2. Affective trust

As the name suggests, affective trust refers to moods, feelings, and attitudes. Unlike cognitive trust, which is based on rational assessment, affective trust comes from within (i.e., the heart) and is earned when you connect with another person on a personal, deeper level—beyond the surface. Sharing a meal together serves as a good example of how you can establish affective trust in any workplace setting.

Some countries, such as China and Brazil, operate on this type of trust system, where “business is personal.”

You may have also heard about so-called peach and coconut cultures:

• People from peach cultures tend to be familiar with the cognitive trust system. They appear soft on the outside, but beneath that surface lies a tougher core. It’s common for them to behave “softly” toward others—for instance, smiling at random people crossing the street or asking personal questions to a stranger on a train. However, once the initial formalities are over, you begin to experience the “hard” part of their personality in an effort to protect their inner selves.
• People from coconut cultures operate on affective trust. Initially, it’s challenging to connect with them—they’re like a tough coconut shell. However, with persistence, you can eventually crack open that shell. Building relationships with these cultures takes time and effort, but once trust is established, you can expect unwavering loyalty from the other person.

Dutch people tend to operate based on cognitive trust (task-based), while Indian people tend to operate based on affective trust (relationship-based). British people lean more toward cognitive trust, although not as strongly as one would expect.

The Trusting Scale (see the picture below) will help you understand how various cultures establish trust. This could be based on relationships and how well you know a person, or on how well you work together and others perform.

Drawing from my own personal experience, I once collaborated with an Indian colleague who faced a deeply tragic period. Although we weren’t particularly close, our entire team rallied to support him during this difficult time. We visited him in the hospital and attended the funeral service. Upon his return to work, I noticed a remarkable increase in his loyalty and commitment to the team. It was evident that we had earned his trust, and he responded to our kindness by giving his absolute best at work.

Concluding, some of my colleagues (who are also managers) travel to India periodically. Upon their return, they often describe the trip as ‘unproductive’ due to all of the social gatherings and fine dining. However, I believe these trips have the potential to be very ‘productive’ in the sense that they can be valuable for fostering even deeper trust within this cultural context. My advice would be to embrace all of the collaboration, and when things are back to normal again, make up for all of the lost focus time. As Erin Meyer wisely puts it, ‘Trust is like insurance—it’s an investment you need to make upfront, before the need arises.’

As I mentioned at the beginning of this blog post, I currently lead a dynamic team comprising seven individuals from around the world. Together, we form a rich tapestry of cultures, including Spanish, Italian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, German, Dutch, and South African.

I will never forget one particular team meeting organized by my Dutch colleague, Richard. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss significant improvements to our solution, which would have a lasting impact on our global user base. Due to unavailability, we were forced to meet in a different part of the building, away from our usual meeting room. Unfamiliar with this area, I decided to be proactive and leave a little earlier, allowing for contingencies in case I got lost. Fortunately, I arrived promptly on the hour, feeling quite pleased with myself, knowing Richard values punctuality.

To my surprise, I wasn’t the first to arrive. On the opposite side of the room sat Hannes, my German colleague, who had actually arrived a couple of minutes earlier! The rest of the team casually arrived several minutes late, seemingly unconcerned about their tardiness. I shifted my attention to Richard, who appeared slightly annoyed by their repeated late arrivals.

Erin Meyer uses the terms linear and flexible when describing how people in different cultures approach time and scheduling:

1. Linear Time

For individuals who fall on the linear-time side of the scale, a typical day unfolds as follows:

• Project steps are tackled sequentially, completing one task before moving on to the next. They focus on one thing at a time, avoiding interruptions.
• The primary emphasis is on meeting deadlines and adhering strictly to schedules.
• Good organization and promptness take precedence over flexibility.

2. Flexible Time

On the other hand, those leaning toward flexible time experience their day differently:

• They approach project steps in a fluid manner, adapting as opportunities arise. They may switch tasks based on changing circumstances.
• Handling multiple things simultaneously is common, and they accept interruptions.
• Their focus lies in adaptability, valuing flexibility over rigid organization.

The Scheduling Scale (see the picture below) illustrates how linear or flexible the cultures being mapped perceive time.

Knowing the above ahead of our next team meeting can help us all understand why certain colleagues behave the way they do. And instead of (some of us) losing our temper and getting annoyed, we might as well have a good laugh about it and recognize the cultural differences at play.

I deepened my understanding when I thought about what might be perceived as “normal” in the various countries represented in our team.

Hannes, hailing from Germany (a first-world country), likely expects most things to proceed according to plan. The “system” rarely disappoints him—for instance, public transport is consistently reliable, allowing him (and his colleagues) to arrive at work punctually each day.

In contrast, Ahmed, coming from Pakistan (a developing country), has grown accustomed to the system letting him down. Irregular public transport means he’s unfazed by colleagues arriving late for meetings; over time, he’s accepted this as perfectly normal behavior.

Personally, I enjoy collaborating with individuals from developing countries—perhaps because I share that background. If we are determined to go somewhere and there is no road, we will build a road despite the cost to pave.

When plotting my colleagues on my personal cultural map, you’ll notice that I’ve placed my Indian colleagues on the extreme right position because they are highly flexible with their time. On the left, I’ve positioned my Dutch colleagues, who are less flexible. My boss from the UK falls somewhere in between, slightly more flexible than the Dutch colleagues but still with a strong preference for linear time. Countries like Germany and Switzerland occupy the most extreme left position.

To foster connections, identify something you can do to make others feel valued. For instance, on one project, I collaborated with an Indian colleague who had a passion for cricket. Since cricket is also popular in South Africa, I decided to learn and follow the sport. This way, I could discuss the latest cricket action with my colleague and connect with them on a personal level beyond work. As a result of this exercise, your colleague will feel valued because you took the time to learn about something they are passionate about.

Show respect by taking a genuine interest in what other people believe. Ask questions to better understand someone’s perspective. You can also research special days celebrated by different religions and wish your colleagues well on those occasions. Trying local dishes during lunch breaks is another way to demonstrate cultural respect.

Avoid irritating people by clarifying name pronunciations upfront. If some names are lengthy or difficult to pronounce, ask if there is a shorter version that the person responds to.

Keep a few basic foreign words in your back pocket for the right occasion. This simple gesture shows that you care about others and that you want to impress them with your foreign vocabulary.

In most Western cultures, it’s considered best practice to verbally recap meetings at the end, followed by a written summary that includes individual action items (shared with all meeting participants). Personally, I’ve developed this habit for very important meetings where accountability is crucial to move forward with a particular initiative.

When working with people from the U.K. and U.S., it’s essential to respond to their emails and messages within 24 hours, even if you don’t have an immediate answer. You can acknowledge receipt by saying, ‘I confirm receipt of your email and will reply by next Monday.’ A timely response aligns with best practice in these cultures.

When dealing with high-context cultures (e.g. India), take responsibility for asking for clarification if you’re unsure about something you’ve heard after reading between the lines.

The phrase “Praise in public; criticize in private” is well-known and most frequently attributed to the great football coach, Vince Lombardi. This timeless advice emphasizes the importance of recognizing and celebrating positive contributions openly while addressing corrective feedback privately.

Public praise carries more weight and encourages others to emulate positive behavior. On the other hand, negative feedback is best delivered privately to avoid triggering defensive reactions. This approach allows for clearer communication and increases the chances of learning from mistakes.

Be willing to leverage situational leadership by adapting your style as and when needed. If appointed as a leader in an egalitarian setting, gain respect by meeting team members at their level. In hierarchical settings, differentiate yourself appropriately (e.g., through dress code). As Erin Meyer states in her book, ‘Increase your ability to work in different ways. Style switching is an essential skill for today’s global manager.’

Regardless of the cultures you’re working with, never underestimate the power of mutual trust. While it may take time to develop, trust is essential for effective work relationships. When collaborating with people from diverse backgrounds, such as coconut cultures (e.g., India), consider extending informal meetings or lunch appointments to build trust. It’s okay if productivity is temporarily affected during these moments; the goal is to establish mutual trust promptly, allowing you to regain focus at work.

Understanding the trust basis of a culture is crucial. In cognitive trust cultures (e.g., the UK), prioritize getting down to business early in meetings. On the other hand, in affective trust cultures (e.g., China), allocate sufficient time for informal conversation.

In some cases, it may be useful to establish common ground rules upfront by collaborating with your team. For example, consider setting guidelines for meetings, such as arriving no more than 5 minutes late. As a leader, you can use your position to influence this exercise, but it’s important to remember that these ground rules should come from the team. In her book, Erin Meyer clearly recognizes that “most misunderstandings can be avoided by defining a clear team culture that everyone agrees to apply.”