We are all supposed to be team players, aren’t we? This is a question that comes in almost every job interview and a lot of times an essential criterion in job advertisements. But does this stand the test against really what happens?

Well, in some cultures it will, in others, although they usually present themselves like that, it won’t.

Where cultures are on this continuum will depend on how they view reaching goals and achieving results.

For sure we all have a competitive aspect to us. We would not have so many competitive sports, lotteries, games and so on otherwise.

In some cultures, this aspect will be the dominant one in our interactions with people. When we negotiate, there has to be a winner and a loser. People in competitive cultures have more difficulty understanding about win-win situations. Rewards are to individuals, they are usually not team-based. If they are team-based, it will be usually a team against other teams. People in more competitive cultures work to targets, appraisal reviews, performance and so on. Blame is also more directed to individuals.

Do I make it sound rather negative? Well, such behaviours can and will have negative consequences: sense of failure, loss of self-confidence for instance in “losers”, inflated egos and arrogance for instance in “winners”. It can also decrease productivity and creativity in teams.

On the other side, competition may lead people to individually achieve more than what they thought they could do.

In contrast, some cultures will be more collaborative. People will work together to achieve goals. Rewards are at team level; no single individual is ever singled-out, for recognition or blame for that matter. Collaboration can improve productivity and innovation. It can also lead to more fruitful negotiations for all parties involved. Collaborative cultures will work towards group well-being, harmony and nurturing people (all of them, not just the winners) more.

Sounds positive? Yes it can be but being collaborative also have some drawbacks. Collaboration increases social pressure. It can also lead to overload and burn out if not careful. When decisions and things are done and taken in groups, it means that people will have lots of meetings, many emails and other communication going back and forth.

So again, it is not one side is better than the other (a competitive approach isn’t it when you think so?) and both have advantages and drawbacks. And as every time you are on a different place on the continuum than the culture you are currently in, you will more strongly feel the disadvantages.

When you are suddenly part of a team with different rules, you will need to adapt to that. If you have a strong competitive streak, you will need to learn not to take the lack of individual recognition as a failure on your part. If you are very collaborative and go to a more competitive culture, you will need to be able to accept some personal recognition for instance. Yes it is hard, as like a lot when it comes to culture, it is something that you been prepared for from a very early age. Changing usually involves confronting your values and assumptions to make being in a different culture successful.

We have all come across places and organisations that take a different view on hierarchy. You will have some organisations with a very structured hierarchy, where the bosses are the bosses. They take the decisions. They demand the respect they think they are due and if it is done well, on the other side, they accept their responsibilities and do so in a way that will help the people below them. Who is higher in the hierarchy in such places is a lot of the time defined by the social status of the person, who that person knows, their age, their gender and that kind of characteristics.

On the other side you have organisations for instance with much flatter hierarchies, where people are considered more equal. Decisions are taken by consensus and everybody in a group will take part into that decision-making process. Status within such a group comes from recent achievements. People are encouraged more to show and take initiative and they also hesitate less to delegate tasks to people below them.

The difference between these two sides is usually relatively easy to see. if you just look at who the managers are for instance, in a more equal organisation they tend to be more diverse than in a more hierarchical organisation or society. Whatever your own preference on this continuum between hierarchy and equality, you will need to adapt to it when confronted with a culture different from your own. The only exception would be if you have the power and authority to change it.

Behaviourally it is not very difficult to actually change it. The problem is that usually your preference runs a lot deeper than just behaviours. It is linked to your values and beliefs. For instance, if you prefer a clear hierarchy, you show respect by deferring to this hierarchy. If you prefer equality, that same value of respect will show very differently behaviourally.

I know that all too well. I think I will never be able to fully accept to do something I do not want to do just because somebody above me asks me to do it. However, I also know when I just need to defer to this because it is the accepted norm of the group. I have experienced both sides in the various countries and organisations I worked and lived in.

It is important to adapt to the local expectations, whether you are the boss or subordinate. If you are the boss and act in an equalitarian manner with people expecting a strong hierarchy, you will be seen as not able to take decisions and insecure. If you are a team member who wants to be heard and participate in decisions when not asked to, you will appear as trespassing on authority and being disrespectful. Whatever the scenario, it is a losing situation for you.

Of course, an open discussion will clarify things but at the end it will not change quickly people’s views on that matter. However, it is not an impossible task and many more authoritarian people have learned to become more inclusive of their team members ideas and can see the benefits this can bring.

All societies and cultures have rules and laws. They differ on the following of these rules and laws.

On one side, some cultures think that these rules and laws apply the same to everybody (universalist cultures). It is a one size fits all approach. On the other side, some cultures will adapt how they apply the laws and rules to the context of the situation (particularist cultures).

At the end, both approaches have the same goal in mind: fairness. However, what fairness means differs. What seems fair to some cultures and some people will not be to others. Western cultures tend to think that fairness is treating everybody the same. Different cultures think fairness is context dependent.

Consider this little exercise commonly given (or something similar) to discover where you stand on this topic. While with you, a close friend or family member has broken the law and it resulted in some damage to somebody. You are the main witness. Now, will you stand by the law and have your friend or family member potentially punished or will you stand by your friend or family member? Would your decision differ according to what the situation exactly was for instance?

This difference between universalist and particularist cultures can have significant implications for business for instance. Imagine a company with offices in different places and different cultures. They tried and tested a new system, let’s say a reward system to employees. It worked well and they want to introduce it in all their offices. That will work only if all places have the same idea of fairness. Otherwise, the reward system may not work and even backfire if considered unfair in some offices where employees are from a different culture. It can also have consequences on how a successful candidate is chosen for a particular position for instance.

So what can you do in circumstances when you are with people on a different side on this universalist/particularist continuum, when you have moved to a new country for instance? The first thing to assess is your own preference. The second thing is to assess on which side of the continuum your interlocutors are. You can check whether rules and policies have a prominent place or not, in offices, shops or in the street for instance. Do people wait for the green light before crossing the road? You will see an illustration of this aspect of culture in many aspects of life. Basically, do people behave in an organised or more unruly, independent manner?

Then, if there is a gap between your and others’ preference, you will need to adapt your behaviour and actions towards what is expected. This can be difficult because this aspect of culture underlies what you think is right or wrong, good or bad. So you need to leave your judgement behind and understand that what is right, wrong, good or bad is relative rather than absolute.

Is this something you can do or does it come with difficulty for you?

The relationship we have with our past, present and future is guided by cultural factors. For instance, cultures that attach more importance to tradition will look more to the past to guide how they should behave in the present and future. Cultures where innovation is more the norm will pay less attention to the past and focus more on the future.

Only the present exists. The past has gone and what you know of it is not the past itself, it is your memory of it. The future has yet to come and also you can shape your future with what you do in the present, you do not know the future.

How can you know how you relate to your past, present and future. Research has used a clever exercise. Imagine each of them is a circle. What would your three circles look like? Would they have the same size? Would they touch each other? Would they overlap? Would they be completely separate? Maybe two touching or overlapping and one further apart?

Our ideas and feelings about past and future will affect our thinking in the present. They will affect our decision-making, how we see life and so on. All three, past, present and future will dictate our actions in the present. Our past experiences, the importance we give the future will influence the actions we take now. After all, all what we experienced in the past makes us what we are today. But it doesn’t have to decide completely who we will be tomorrow. It depends how much you relate to your past and your future.

Most of us are not good at delayed gratification. This is because we have a hard time imagining something happening in the middle or long term future. It is why we need milestones and successes to celebrate regularly when we are on our way to reaching a goal in the not near future. It is why we are good at instant gratification, whatever it is, and are not so good at imagining the consequences of it in the future.

How people or cultures relate to their past, present and future is not easy to appreciate. So what can you do to try and make sure there are no misunderstandings and blunders because of different appreciations of past, present and future?

If you deal at the level of an organisation, what that organisation says about itself with give clues. Is it emphasising its reputation, its long established brand (past), its customer service (more present) or its ability to innovate (future)? Looking at the organisation’s values will give you aan idea.

When it comes to dealing with individuals, it is more difficult. The best is just to be cautious. If you are more future or present oriented, don’t dismiss people’s ideas and feelings if they talk about their past or if they are wary about change and think future is uncertain and scary. As with everything else when you are in a different culture, being open and curious and explaining your own view will help.

The person was 10 minutes late for the meeting. After 15minutes, she took a phone call. Then, her colleague came twice to ask questions. Now, she had to go talk to somebody else. The meeting is supposed to finish in 15 minutes and you haven’t got to the heart of the matter.

What is your reaction? Do you find it exasperating or is it normal? Well, it all depends on your culture. It depends what time means for you.

There are two main ways of seeing time: monochronic or polychronic.

In monochronic cultures, you tend to divide your time into tasks that you get done in sequence. Time is about doing. In these cultures, it is expected meetings will begin on time, follow the agenda, people are focused on the task. People apologise if they are late. For such cultures, time is finite, it comes and goes and that’s it. People in monochronic cultures have a more rigid view of time. Examples are North America, Northern Europe and some Asian cultures.

In contrast, polychronic cultures, such as in South America, the Middle East and Southern Europe, time is more about what you are doing at any one point rather than on timeframes in which to do it. You do what is important at the time and time is about forging and nurturing relationships. It is not so much people are multi-tasking (we cannot efficiently); it is they switch more easily from one task to another, and do not see as distractions what could be seen as such in monochronic cultures.

So, what do you do?

1. Whatever your cultural orientation, if you are to meet with people you do not know, aim to arrive on time. Take something with you to read or do if you have to wait. Or see about having chats with people. This will build the relationships so important in polychronic cultures.
2. If you are more a polychronic person, try to focus a bit more on your interlocutor especially if this person is more monochronic in their orientations. You will build a relationship with this person this way.
3. If you are more monochronic in your approach, do not take personally the behaviours of people who have a more polychronic approach. They are not ignoring you.
4. If mismatch prevents progress, just stop and discuss what is happening.

How we see time and our relation to it is deeply cultural. It will define how we plan our days and how our relationships with others are managed.

Do you get angry if meetings begin late, don’t follow the agenda or run late? Do you get upset and worried if intermediate deadlines and milestones are not met? Have you ever wondered that these behaviours are normal, indeed expected, for other people?

There are two main ways of seeing time. On one side, time is a linear process. Time is scarce. Time goes in one direction, second after second. In Western cultures for instance, aren’t we not talking of time flying, being spent or being wasted? Time is a succession of tasks to be done. Time is to be used efficiently. All time management advice go towards this: some type of to-do list, no procrastination. I know this: I have designed an online course for people needing to manage their time this way.

On the other side, time can be seen as more cyclical. This will be the case in a lot of Asian and Middle Eastern cultures. Time is seen as plentiful, instead of being scarce. When people see time this way, they take time to take time. They do not rush from one task to the next. They also tend to live more in the present, noticing the present, being in the present more. Time is not about completing tasks. Time is about building relationships, being there when needed for others.

One view of time is not intrinsically better than the other. They are different. When you are not aware of this distinction, can you imagine the frustration it might bring on both sides? If you see time linearly, you probably will have wondered and maybe be annoyed at somebody who seemed to be in no rush at all and not paying attention to the minutes passing by. In contrast, if you see time as less linear, you may not understand why some people seem to be so pushy, wanting you to rush.

Now that you know this, analyse which type you are closer to. When you interact with somebody closer to the other type, remember that their behaviour is not meant to annoy you. Instead, try to adapt your tendencies to accommodate a bit more the other person.

In the last post in this series, I explained how cultures can define how we think, whether we think more in terms of from ideas to applications or from data to ideas.

There is another big way in which our culture will dictate how we think and this is whether we’re going to chunk down our thinking, that is divide bigger things into more manageable tasks, or weather we look at things in a systemic way, looking at the whole picture.

As with a lot of things each method has its advantages and disadvantages.

In the West, we are usually taught from a young age to think analytically, to breakdown big problems or tasks into smaller ones. It is a mainstay of all problem-solving techniques. The rationale for that is that it will be more manageable and probably less daunting. However, doing that, it is very easy not to realise the consequences of one small tasks on the whole area and sometimes that single smaller task can have devastating effects. It can also bring you into a wrong direction in terms of your overall goal.

Think in terms of an ecosystem for instance. Having this kind of thinking is looking at one species that is getting a little bit too invasive. Thinking analytically will be bringing in a predator to eat that first species without looking at all the potential consequences. And then you realise that that first predator well, not only preys upon the species you wanted it to prey upon but will also prey on other species and begin to wreak havoc in your ecosystem. So, what do you do if you keep with that same type of thinking? You’re going to bring a predator of the first predator you introduced and so on. Basically, that kind of thinking will not look at the big picture.

I contrast, in a lot of Asian cultures for instance and some other cultures too people tend to think looking at the whole picture. This has advantages because you don’t lose sight of your end goal. On the other hand, it can have the disadvantage that things can look rather daunting and it can be difficult in some cases to design a way forward to reach that end goal.

In terms of our ecosystem example, it means that you look at everything that could be done and assess their global consequences, which is good, but then maybe have difficulties prioritising what to do. The good thing is that although our culture has sent us into one direction or the other in terms of this thinking, it doesn’t mean we cannot think the other way. We can practice and learn to think differently. We need to be aware of this thinking and how it affects what we want to achieve. We need to learn to be able to adapt our thinking to the context. It is good for instance that a project manager is very analytical: it allows the manager to plan the project. However, at the same time, the manager needs to be able to think systemically because the project always fits into a wider organisation.

Are you aware that your culture defines how you think? No, probably not, it’s not something that we think about very often.

But actually within your own culture you’ve been trained to think in a certain way. So what are the various ways of thinking depending on your culture?

Basically they are two main types. They are usually called deductive and inductive thinking. Again as for everything else about culture, there is a continuum between these two ways of thinking. Of course your culture will train you more into a certain way than the other but it doesn’t mean that you cannot think differently. It will depend a lot on the context and although most of us will have a preference for one style or the other, we will be able to think when necessary using the other type.

So what is deductive thinking? It is when you begin by thinking of ideas abstract concepts and then you will look at how some of them could be applied in real life. This is quite a powerful way of thinking because it allows you to take into account the complexity of the world around you.

This deductive thinking is the main way of thinking in for instance a lot of Europe and also in some Asian cultures. I guess this is where The French culture has got its reputation of being an intellectual one. People like to talk and debate about ideas which is great but with this type of thinking you have to be conscious that your thoughts can take you a long way from the real world.

In contrast, inductive thinking is when you begin with facts, observations and that then you try to categorise make sense of them and induce rules and principles from these observations.

One advantage of this way of thinking is that your rules and principles will for sure be rooted in the real world if I can say. However, the disadvantage of this way of thinking is that what you can see, observe, grasp from the real world is limited. You cannot grasp the whole complexity of it, which means that the rules and principles you will infer from your observations can be in many cases just too simple because they cannot take into account the full complexity around you.

It is very easy to find somebody from the other side of the continuum quite frustrating in their way of thinking. For deductive thinkers, an inductive approach will seem a bit simple and too much focused on applying every ideas, rules and principles. In contrast, for inductive thinkers, deductive ideas and abstraction will seem too detached from the real world, maybe missing the point. Inductive thinkers may not really understand what such abstract concepts can bring.

So what is your way of thinking and how do you deal when you communicate with people who have a different way of thinking about things around themselves?

Let’s be honest, this is a tricky one. The difference between the two extremes of the continuum of this variable is huge. When people from different sides communicate, the scope for misunderstanding and for completely missing information is great.

So, what is it about exactly? This cultural orientation in communication is usually referred to as low context and high context.

In low context cultures, the purpose of communication is to exchange information. So, most of the meaning of the communication is carried in the words. Low context people like clear and detailed instructions, guidance, procedures, lengthy contracts. All the better if it is written and signed. Everything in the communication is taken at face value.

In contrast, in high context cultures, the purpose of communication is to build relationships. Words in themselves carry little importance. Most of the meaning comes from non verbal communication: body language, gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice. It is about how it is said, the context around the words. No meaning can be put on the words without noticing and understanding the context.

From this two descriptions, you can easily imagine how communication could go astray. Imagine a low context person listening to the words and not noticing the body language and expression of their interlocutor. Or taking a yes for a yes when the whole context makes it clear for the person saying yes that it is actually a no.I told you it was a tricky one!

Another difficulty is that context is what it says on the tin: it is very contextual. So, even two persons from high context cultures may have different contexts and will not fully understand each other either. For instance, think about a gesture you could make with your hand. You make it because to you it means something. For another person, it could mean something very different or nothing at all.

Then, what can you do to reduce confusion and misunderstanding? First observe and be aware of the non verbal communication. It can be hard and will take time when you are not used to it. Second, observe the outcome of communication, especially when you are not involved. This will help you relate the meaning, outcome to the non verbal communication you have observed. Third, do not try to interpret when you don’t know. You don’t know the context because it is not your culture, so the likelihood is that your own interpretation will be off the mark. Fourth, accept you will miss or misinterpret some information. So, when you do not get the results you expect, clarify to understand where the meaning has been lost.

Understanding fully all the details of a high context culture may be out of reach in the time you have in this culture. You will still definitely improve with practice and with awareness. When you go from a high context to a low context culture, remember that people will likely miss the meaning of your non verbal communication. Don’t be surprised if they misunderstand you and try to put a bit more of the information you want to convey in your words.

Whatever happens when you meet somebody from the other side of this continuum, accept it will make for interesting conversations.

Most of us show some of their feelings with family and close friends. In contrast, whether to show your feelings with people you don’t know or in a work situation is another matter.

It is very easy to recognise if somebody shows their feelings or not. It is one of the most obvious differences to notice between different cultures. Paradoxically, it is one of the hardest to change, to adapt to and to acknowledge.

In some cultures, such as in Northern Europe, you are not expected to show your feelings in work situations. You’ve got to take everything on the chin, bottle up, or not be too enthusiastic when things go well. It can be even more repressed in some Asian cultures.

In many places, showing feelings, particularly such as anger, will make you appear extremely unprofessional.

In contrast, in other cultures such as in Southern Europe, it is considered that feelings are part and parcel of who you are. Feelings are used in decision making. Feelings are used to convey messages that your words cannot. Not exhibiting any feelings is considered as dubious. People will think you may be hiding something, you are cold and unapproachable.

When people from these two different sides meet, it is easy to see that there will be an obvious mismatch. One person might think that they cannot trust the other person because they feel so distant and cold, while the other person might think the other one is like a child, throwing a tantrum or getting excited.

You’d think that when the difference is so obvious to notice, it should be easy to adapt to the situation. This is not the case. If you are on the side of not expressing your feelings, how is it when you force yourself to express them? You are likely feeling like playing a role, not really being you. On the opposite, if you try to repress your feelings, you will likely be like boiling inside.

So, how to make things a bit easier when you communicate with somebody on the other side of the spectrum in terms of expressing feelings?

First, try to move a bit towards the middle of the scale. Try to express yourself slightly more if you usually hide your feelings. Try to be slightly less expressive if you are used to show your feelings plainly.

Second, discuss it openly with your interlocutor. Acknowledge each other’s attitude, do not judge and explain what it means for each of you. Do not interpret somebody’s actions, attitudes and behaviours by your own standards because they just don’t apply to people from other cultures.