Steven feels overwhelmed by Minato's wordy presentation, agenda layout and the fact that 2/3 of meeting time were spent without touching on next steps. For this reason, he makes an attempt to summarize what was just shared using a total of 50 words in the form of a bulleted list with the goal to make the message brief and succinct and enable action. As part of his recap, he proceeds to highlight the need for brevity during status report meetings. He directly and in the presence of everyone in the room, says to Minato, that sharing in so much detail when amongst a team already aware of a project's scope, equals poor use of time. 

 

Minato feels offended to have received negative feedback in such a direct manner, and also thinks that Steven has failed to grasp the actual reason why his presentation was so detailed. Where is he coming from in sharing in such a detailed manner and why is he feeling negative emotions? Minato was looking to not only communicate the plan but also help everyone involved become a well-informed agent. To do that, he had to first communicate the precise thought process that led to the design of the strategy and action plan he had just finished presenting. As a Japanese, he sees great value in sharing background information before touching on the core of things.  His wish was to give context prior to engaging the team to any next steps. This to Minato, is an absolute must to help foster group collaboration. When it comes to his negative emotion, as a Japanese, he feels that feedback is necessary yet it could have been shared in a less direct way and in a more polite and friendly manner. 

​

Steven's irritation stems from feeling that this large volume of information is unnecessary and contributes no value to immediate progress needed to be made. He believes that the meeting should have been focused on next steps, thus a simple bulleted list of action items with accountable parties set for each, would have been more than enough. He also thinks that too much time was wasted for information that won't help progress be made, which to him, should have been the goal of this meeting. According to Steven, this type of understanding should go without saying. He also fails to understand why Minato feels offended by his direct feedback as there has never been any issue in the past when sharing feedback amongst his American business peers. Where is Steven coming from with his approach, and also, sharing feedback in the direct manner that he did? Steven thinks that the majority of time needs to be spent on planning around future actions to help progress be made prior to the team reconvening for next week's status report meeting. As an American, he values the direct, honest and prompt feedback to ensure any quick shift needed, and achieve the desired results quickly and effectively.

 

Minato on the other hand believes that sharing the background of an approach and suggested action plan is absolutely necessary.  Where is Minato coming from in thinking that? As a Japanese, Minato thinks that a 360˚ sharing equals a 360˚ understanding by everyone involved. He also thinks that the only safe road to inclusion is through awareness; sharing with the team how leadership landed on the current strategy is essential prior to taking any next steps. He thinks that by dissecting a thought and analyzing the process that led to decisions made thus far, can minimize the volume of potential questions coming from the team. 

 

Both Minato and Steven agree that now that the background of things has been shared with all parties involved in the effort, it would be a good idea to use the next status report meeting to discuss about progress to be made in the meantime and/or action required. Both feel that the meeting was somewhat productive yet none of them is 100% happy with how this conversation unfolded or how it made them feel. They have agreed to what their next status report meeting should be focused on yet Minato feels that the whole thing felt dictative and non-inclusive and not all strategy and ideation oriented, whereas Steven feels that because strategy is already in place and given how everyone who are part of this effort are already aware, time should be spent for action planning and in accordance with the agreed timeline.

 

Culture is originated from or attributed to a specific region or location. What you just read above is a typical case of Low context vs High context communication and a great example of what culture as a concept encompasses of, i.e., social behavior, institutions, and norms found in societies and racial communities but also the knowledge, beliefs, customs and habits of the individuals in these groups.

 

The Qs that help fill in the gaps...

• Q: Did Minato and Steven both want to add value to the meeting? A: Yes.

• Q: Did Minato and Steven contribute valuable insights as to the 'how-to' side of things? A: Yes.

• Q: In spite of the fact that both Minato and Steven share a common goal, was the communication between them a seamless one? A: No.

• Q: Was the outcome of the communication between Minato and Steven a successful one? A: Yes and no. Why? Yes, because even after some troubled sorting out in communicating asks and goals they have agreed on next steps, and no, because they were both left feeling that their way of thinking and operating, as a direct result of their origin and culture, were not effortlessly acknowledged, and embraced but required effort and caused some amount of friction and dismay.

• Q: What could have made Minato and Steven's communication more effective? A: There is an interplay between origin, language and approach and in this case, there was lack of awareness around the cultural differences between Minato and Steven. Awareness is key and the only way for one to succeed when working in the international business landscape. Becoming aware of one's behavioral patterns based on their country of origin, can help understand more around the way they communicate and go about a situation, but also identify potential triggers and areas of cultural misalignment.

 

When collaborating with a multicultural group of people, one needs to first identify the cultural differences that create a gap in the way people perceive, share and analyze information. Some key questions one needs to ask are: What part of the world does my business partner grew up in? Given their country of origin, does my business partner require little or a lot of information? Given their country of origin, is my business partner an action-oriented individual or someone who first needs to spend some time to reflect and strategize prior to taking any action? Given their country of origin, how can make suggestions in a way that my business partner will perceive my speech as intended?

 

The idea is not to eliminate cultural differences, but understand how to navigate the culture gap to help achieve a successful and fair partnership; one that will create a friendly premise for partners to feel that their unique approach is acknowledged and valued and by extend, inspire them to produce the desired results. 

​

‘The Culture Map’ offers a reader insight on the principles of communication that can help shorten the gap when working with globally dispersed teams. In order to be able to decode a message, you first need to understand more about the cultural background of the person you are liaising with. Once this bridge has been crossed, everything else falls right into place. 

​

Find on Goodreads: The Culture Map