A leader I was coaching recently came to me with a dilemma. “I do not understand my team,” he admitted. “Half of them never speak up in meetings, and the other half challenge everything I say. Some are upset if I give blunt feedback, others get frustrated if I soften it. I am exhausted trying to figure out what they want from me.” He was not facing a competence problem. His team were skilled. The struggle was cultural. When we looked more closely, it became clear that the tension came from different expectations about communication, leadership, and even time. What felt natural to him was not natural to them. What felt respectful to one group felt disrespectful to another.
This is the reality of leading in today’s world. It is not enough to be technically competent or even emotionally intelligent. Leaders must also be culturally intelligent. Erin Meyer’s Culture Map offers eight dimensions that highlight where differences most often show up. Each has two poles. The task is not to pick one side, but to understand both and learn how to move between them.
Eight dimensions of culture and what you can do to lead within them
Erin Meyer’s Culture map on the G8 countries
1. Communicating: Low-Context vs. High-Context
In some cultures, clarity comes from explicit words: say what you mean. In others, clarity lives in what is unsaid: tone, silence, relationship, and shared history. Low-context cultures such as the US, Germany, and Scandinavia depend on directness. High-context cultures such as Japan, China, and the Middle East rely on subtlety, implication, and non-verbal cues.
A US-based manager asks her Japanese colleague for a project status. She expects bullet points. Instead, he gives a long narrative, gently implying there are delays. She hears vagueness, he assumes she will interpret the message. Both believe they are being clear.
If you are low-context working with high-context colleagues:
• Be patient with indirect or nuanced communication.
• Ask open-ended questions to draw out meaning without forcing bluntness.
• Pay attention to non-verbal cues such as pauses and tone.
• Invest time in building background and relationships.
• Resist the urge to demand plain answers immediately.
If you are high-context working with low-context colleagues:
• Make your communication more explicit.
• Do not assume shared understanding. Explain key points directly.
• Provide written follow-ups to confirm agreements.
• Invite colleagues to ask questions if unclear.
• Use concrete examples to support abstract or implied messages.
Reflective questions
• Where do I fall on the spectrum: words or context?
• How do I react when someone communicates in the opposite way?
• What small shift could create more clarity for others?
2. Evaluating: Direct vs. Indirect Feedback
Cultures differ in how criticism is given. In direct-feedback cultures such as the Netherlands, Israel, or Russia, bluntness is valued as honesty. In indirect-feedback cultures such as Japan, Thailand, or the UK, critique is softened or implied to protect dignity.
A Dutch manager tells a Thai employee, “This report is weak.” He intends to be efficient. She feels humiliated. He wonders why she is withdrawn, she wonders if she can trust him.
If you are direct-feedback working with indirect colleagues:
• Begin with genuine positive reinforcement before critique.
• Use softer tone and constructive phrasing.
• Emphasise improvement, not flaws.
• Watch for signs of hurt or defensiveness.
• Follow up to ensure clarity and preserve relationship.
If you are indirect-feedback working with direct colleagues:
• Be clear and specific. Avoid hiding the main point.
• Use data and examples to support critique.
• Acknowledge that others may value frankness.
• Check that your message was understood.
• Emphasise growth, not just reassurance.
Reflective questions
• Do I equate bluntness with honesty, or softness with respect?
• How does my feedback style shape trust?
• What one adjustment could make my feedback both clear and caring?
3. Persuading: Principles-First vs. Applications-First
Some cultures persuade through theory, others through practice. In principles-first cultures such as France, Italy, and Russia, arguments begin with concepts. In applications-first cultures such as the US, Canada, and Australia, persuasion begins with examples and evidence.
A French consultant outlines a theory. Her American client interrupts: “Has this worked anywhere?” Both are persuasive, but in opposite ways.
If you are principles-first working with applications-first colleagues:
• Link principles to outcomes.
• Balance theory with examples.
• Show immediate benefits as well as long-term reasoning.
• Respect the need for practical proof.
• Keep abstractions grounded in reality.
If you are applications-first working with principles-first colleagues:
• Engage with the rationale, not just the result.
• Use examples to illustrate underlying principles.
• Value long-term reasoning alongside quick wins.
• Invite discussion of frameworks, not only cases.
• Recognise intellectual depth as part of decision-making.
Reflective questions
• Do I privilege theory or practice?
• How often do I adapt to my audience’s preference?
• What could I gain by using both?
4. Leading: Egalitarian vs. Hierarchical
Authority carries different meaning. In egalitarian cultures such as Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands, leaders are accessible and hierarchies are flat. In hierarchical cultures such as India, China, and Nigeria, authority is respected and direction flows from the top.
A Dutch analyst interrupts the CEO with an idea. This is expected in his culture. In China, the same act would be disrespectful.
If you are from an egalitarian culture working with hierarchical colleagues:
• Show respect for authority, even if you value informality.
• Adapt to more formal communication with leaders.
• Support decisions made at the top when appropriate.
• Avoid assuming equal voice is always welcome.
• Recognise hierarchy as cultural value.
If you are from a hierarchical culture working with egalitarian colleagues:
• Encourage contributions from all levels.
• Foster informal interaction across ranks.
• Be transparent about decision-making.
• Allow for challenges to your ideas.
• Build comfort with open dialogue.
Reflective questions
• Do I mistake silence for lack of ideas?
• How do I balance respect with participation?
• What kind of leader do I expect others to be?
5. Deciding: Consensual vs. Top-Down
Decision-making signals belonging. In consensual cultures such as Japan, Sweden, and Belgium, agreement is sought widely before deciding. In top-down cultures such as China, the US, and the UK, leaders decide quickly, often with limited consultation.
A Japanese team expects long discussions before consensus. An American manager decides in the second meeting. To him this is decisive, to them it is premature.
If you are from a consensual culture working with top-down colleagues:
• Respect the need for speed.
• Avoid pushing for endless discussion.
• Support the leader’s decision once made.
• Learn when group dialogue has reached its limit.
• Help by summarising and confirming agreement.
If you are from a top-down culture working with consensual colleagues:
• Invite broad input before deciding.
• Share your reasoning openly.
• Allow time for questions and feedback.
• Be ready to adjust if new ideas surface.
• Build commitment by showing that voices are heard.
Reflective questions
• Do I see consensus as strength or delay?
• How do I explain my style to others?
• When did I last slow down for ownership?
6. Trusting: Task-Based vs. Relationship-Based
Trust is built differently. In task-based cultures such as the US, Germany, and the UK, trust comes through performance. In relationship-based cultures such as China, Brazil, and much of the Middle East, trust comes through personal connection and shared experiences.
An American engineer trusts after a project is delivered well. A Brazilian partner trusts after meals and conversation.
If you are task-based working with relationship-based colleagues:
• Invest in social time.
• Treat meals and rituals as essential.
• Be patient with slower starts to business.
• Share personal details to build warmth.
• Notice signals of trust beyond performance.
If you are relationship-based working with task-based colleagues:
• Demonstrate competence quickly.
• Meet deadlines and commitments.
• Respect that personal sharing is not always required.
• Balance warmth with efficiency.
• Show that you value results as well as connection.
Reflective questions
• Do I see trust through work or through relationship?
• How do I feel when others do not share personally?
• What might I gain from the other approach?
7. Disagreeing: Confrontational vs. Avoiding Confrontation
Cultures handle conflict differently. In confrontational cultures such as France, Germany, and Israel, open debate is normal and energising. In avoiding-confrontation cultures such as Japan, Thailand, and Ghana, harmony is prized and disagreement is often private.
An Israeli colleague argues passionately in a meeting. To him this shows commitment. A Japanese colleague would see the same act as disruptive.
If you are from a confrontational culture working with non-confrontational colleagues:
• Moderate your tone so it does not feel personal.
• Use private conversations to raise issues.
• Clarify that debate is about ideas, not loyalty.
• Slow down your pace of argument.
• Notice when silence may hide disagreement.
If you are from a non-confrontational culture working with confrontational colleagues:
• Prepare to speak more directly.
• Understand that debate is not always conflict.
• Separate disagreement from personal rejection.
• Use data to strengthen your points.
• Recognise debate as a sign of engagement.
Reflective questions
• How comfortable am I with disagreement?
• Do I confuse silence with agreement?
• What one change would help me handle conflict better?
8. Scheduling: Linear Time vs. Flexible Time
Time itself is cultural. Linear-time cultures such as Germany, Switzerland, and the US see time as sequential. Agendas, punctuality, and deadlines are signs of respect. Flexible-time cultures such as India, Mexico, and Nigeria see time as adaptable. Priorities shift and relationships often outrank the clock.
A German executive is offended when a meeting starts late. For him, punctuality signals reliability. A Mexican colleague sees no problem because she was finishing an important conversation.
If you follow linear time working with flexible-time colleagues:
• Build buffers into schedules.
• Avoid moral judgement about lateness.
• Communicate clearly why deadlines matter.
• Be ready to adjust plans when context shifts.
• Show patience with adaptability.
If you follow flexible time working with linear-time colleagues:
• Honour the importance of punctuality.
• Communicate delays as soon as possible.
• Keep commitments once they are agreed.
• Recognise that frequent changes can seem careless.
• Show respect for structure even if you prefer flexibility.
Reflective questions
• Do I equate punctuality with professionalism?
• How do I respond when time is treated differently?
• What would it take to respect both discipline and flexibility?
Conclusion
Leading across cultures is not about mastering every difference. It is about noticing assumptions, adapting where needed, and holding curiosity where confusion arises.
Our habits feel natural, yet they are cultural. The gift of multicultural leadership is discovering that what feels normal is not universal.
Better leadership is not about imposing one way. It is about creating space where multiple ways can work together. The deeper question for every leader is this: Am I willing to be changed by those I lead?
Recommended reading and watching
• Erin Meyer, The Culture Map — the book that frames the eight dimensions explored above.
• Erin Meyer’s TED Talk: “How to Lead Across Cultures” (short and practical overview).
• Fons Trompenaars, Riding the Waves of Culture — another classic on cultural frameworks in business.
• Geert Hofstede’s work on cultural dimensions — useful for understanding national differences at a macro level.
Leave A Comment