The culture map: How to navigate foreign cultures in business(ahalbert.com)
ahalbert.com
The culture map: How to navigate foreign cultures in business
https://ahalbert.com/reviews/2023/06/04/the_culture_map.html
63 comments
Unfortunately, technical communication can also bump into cross-cultural challenges.
When reading up on international business communication, to prep for one of my roles, one of the writers gave an example of a statement an engineer might make: that widget X will work in time. But you're supposed to know from context, at the times they repeatedly said that, that what they really meant is it definitely won't work in time.
Some differences of culture/communication that I recall hearing can happen:
* that it's bad to say "no" in some contexts (e.g., it's disrespectful, or a sense that the other would rather you say "yes" but not follow through than to say "no");
* that a person should do exactly the task they were told to do without second-guessing nor feedback;
* that one shouldn't contradict their superior;
* that one can't mention a mistake of someone else;
* that admitting a mistake one made would cause embarrassment or a loss of face to the person hearing it;
* how important trust is, and how it's established.
Engineers talking with each other about tech aren't necessarily immune to this.
Of course these are just possibilities for misunderstanding to be aware of, as people from different cultures find common ground to communicate. (In many ways, I've been very impressed with how well many colleagues and partners around the globe have performed. I've also been humbled by how many people not in the US meet US-born people like me well more than halfway -- in language, and in cultural faux pas tolerance, etc. I've also seen more consistently friendly behavior/mindset in some overseas company locations than we'd normally find in a US company location.)
Also, I'm sure that there are lots of US-isms that are baffling to others (even if they learned it through training or US media), and I'd bet I'm oblivious to many of them, having grown up with them as "normal".
When reading up on international business communication, to prep for one of my roles, one of the writers gave an example of a statement an engineer might make: that widget X will work in time. But you're supposed to know from context, at the times they repeatedly said that, that what they really meant is it definitely won't work in time.
Some differences of culture/communication that I recall hearing can happen:
* that it's bad to say "no" in some contexts (e.g., it's disrespectful, or a sense that the other would rather you say "yes" but not follow through than to say "no");
* that a person should do exactly the task they were told to do without second-guessing nor feedback;
* that one shouldn't contradict their superior;
* that one can't mention a mistake of someone else;
* that admitting a mistake one made would cause embarrassment or a loss of face to the person hearing it;
* how important trust is, and how it's established.
Engineers talking with each other about tech aren't necessarily immune to this.
Of course these are just possibilities for misunderstanding to be aware of, as people from different cultures find common ground to communicate. (In many ways, I've been very impressed with how well many colleagues and partners around the globe have performed. I've also been humbled by how many people not in the US meet US-born people like me well more than halfway -- in language, and in cultural faux pas tolerance, etc. I've also seen more consistently friendly behavior/mindset in some overseas company locations than we'd normally find in a US company location.)
Also, I'm sure that there are lots of US-isms that are baffling to others (even if they learned it through training or US media), and I'd bet I'm oblivious to many of them, having grown up with them as "normal".
To me the most blatant US-ism is how feedback is biased all the way to positivity to a ridiculous degree. I've learned to understand that if someone from the US says that X is anything less than amazing, then they probably think it's shit.
What's funny about it is that in an environment where everyone is aware of this, the apparent intended effect of sugar-coating doesn't work at all. You'll just hurt people by saying their stuff is okay.
What's funny about it is that in an environment where everyone is aware of this, the apparent intended effect of sugar-coating doesn't work at all. You'll just hurt people by saying their stuff is okay.
We (Australians) have been hit with some serious stuff with our Filipino subsidiary. They've been asked to do something, they realized it was not the right thing to do a week in, still did what they've been asked for more than two months.
Later when we realized we asked the wrong thing, they said "oh yes of course we knew it was not the right thing". The convention that you don't argue with "the boss" cost us many man-months of work.
You can only successfully discuss technical matters if both parties are willing to do just that.
Later when we realized we asked the wrong thing, they said "oh yes of course we knew it was not the right thing". The convention that you don't argue with "the boss" cost us many man-months of work.
You can only successfully discuss technical matters if both parties are willing to do just that.
Sounds like incompetency to me. Knowingly wasting months should be a dealbreaker.
> ... if both parties are willing to do just that
If only both parties created trust between each other.
You grow what you sow.
If only both parties created trust between each other.
You grow what you sow.
That's a bullshit take. We had an Australian go there and hire everyone. If it were Australians he hired out the blue (i.e. with just that little trust), he would have heard about the problem as soon as they were discovered.
There has to be an understanding that you won't be penalized for saying it's not the right thing. Which might be obvious in your company culture but not really obvious even for different companies much less broader cultural differences.
Well what is it if not a cultural difference in discussing a technical issue that the thread-starting comment asserted don't exist?
Guessing those Australians would have had much better labour protections and a better social safety net if they did get fired, giving them the safety to criticise. Not "trust" exactly since it's more about not needing to trust a given employer, but a similar pattern.
What's a more guaranteed way to get fired: report an issue with a task upfront or keep doing useless work for a couple of months until the boss finds out?
You’re looking at it with western eyes and a big salary.
Now imagine being at McDonald’s on minimum wage. Your manager asks you to do something that in your eyes make no sense. Last time he did, you said something and got réprimantes for it. Do you bring it up again? Or you let the manager decide and move on with your life.
Now imagine being at McDonald’s on minimum wage. Your manager asks you to do something that in your eyes make no sense. Last time he did, you said something and got réprimantes for it. Do you bring it up again? Or you let the manager decide and move on with your life.
Well, again it depends on the culture. Some boss wouldn't take any disagreement from subordinates well. No matter what the result looks like, if the boss doesn't declare the project failed, than that's not a failure. Even if it failed, the subordinate takes the blame, it's less serious than bringing up issues early because the boss's order is faithfully carried through to the end.
It wasn't even about a disagreement.
If was like "Get a mop, a bucket in the storeroom, pour in a cup of sugarsoap into the bucket and fill up with water then wash the floors". They washed the floors even though they couldn't find the sugarsoap because by accident they god sent sugar and soap instead, so they put that in, perfectly understanding what sugarsoap is and why sugar and soap won't replace it.
If was like "Get a mop, a bucket in the storeroom, pour in a cup of sugarsoap into the bucket and fill up with water then wash the floors". They washed the floors even though they couldn't find the sugarsoap because by accident they god sent sugar and soap instead, so they put that in, perfectly understanding what sugarsoap is and why sugar and soap won't replace it.
The word ‘done’ can disproportionately mean different things culturally and geographically between average and above average developers.
Done = ready to be used to do what it’s made to do
I’ve lived in many cultures. In what culture, does “done” not mean that?
In some cultures you may lie about it being done, but internally you know what’s being asked and that you’re lying in reply.
I’ve lived in many cultures. In what culture, does “done” not mean that?
In some cultures you may lie about it being done, but internally you know what’s being asked and that you’re lying in reply.
In Portugal being done, means that if I need to place a blackboard on the wall and the screws don't fit, most likely we will get some creative solution to still hang the blackboard, consider it done, and if it falls down, no biggie, we hang it up again.
In Germany or Switzerland, in the same situation, you would be told that it is a security issue and it is dangerous to have a blackboard that might fall, to reschedule placing the board to when the proper screws are available. Only then will the blackboard be placed in position and it will only fall if the rest of the building falls as well.
Yes, steorotypes, yet quite real with two quite different kinds of what done actually means.
In Germany or Switzerland, in the same situation, you would be told that it is a security issue and it is dangerous to have a blackboard that might fall, to reschedule placing the board to when the proper screws are available. Only then will the blackboard be placed in position and it will only fall if the rest of the building falls as well.
Yes, steorotypes, yet quite real with two quite different kinds of what done actually means.
Not the experience of many.
Done can mean I'm done my first pass but this is untested.
Done can mean I think I did what you asked but I never checked or verified my assumptions, nor were there enough input.
Done can mean I'm done my first pass but this is untested.
Done can mean I think I did what you asked but I never checked or verified my assumptions, nor were there enough input.
Unless I'm missing something somewhere on this site... this is a summary about the book by Erin Meyer [0]. But I ctrl+F'd and I don't see the name Erin Meyer anywhere on this page, nor do I see a link to another site or where to buy the book. I think that giving such a detailed summary + excerpts of a book on a site and not linking it is a bit shitty.
In regards to the book points, the last one reminds me of another great book on cultural differences by Michelle Gelfand titled "Rule Makers, Rule Breakers" [1] on her theory about 'Tight' and 'Loose' societies. As someone who has lived and worked in several very different parts of the world (and called very different places 'home' at various times in life) the book went a long way to giving context on why I feel different in different places (I'm from a 'tight' society but now spend much of my time living in locales that tend to be 'loose' but always feel a bit alien due to never being able to shake the want of 'tightness' aka rules, order, timeliness and predictability.)
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Map-Breaking-Invisible-Bounda...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Rule-Makers-Breakers-Tight-Cultures/d...
In regards to the book points, the last one reminds me of another great book on cultural differences by Michelle Gelfand titled "Rule Makers, Rule Breakers" [1] on her theory about 'Tight' and 'Loose' societies. As someone who has lived and worked in several very different parts of the world (and called very different places 'home' at various times in life) the book went a long way to giving context on why I feel different in different places (I'm from a 'tight' society but now spend much of my time living in locales that tend to be 'loose' but always feel a bit alien due to never being able to shake the want of 'tightness' aka rules, order, timeliness and predictability.)
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Map-Breaking-Invisible-Bounda...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Rule-Makers-Breakers-Tight-Cultures/d...
I was also confused by the lack of mention of the author's name -- it's a very odd omission.
Another important difference in business cultures is handling difficult or unachievable requirements. Say you send a work order that needs very tight tolerance in a certain set of holes or a high degree of flatness on a particular surface, and while the company can make the part, they cannot quite fulfill that specific requirement. How each culture handles that situation can vary dramatically, especially outside of the West.
For instance, a German manufacturer will generally tell you “no, we cannot achieve that” on the initial proposal and won’t agree to any requirement they aren’t completely confident they can meet. (This can be frustrating as it feels like they aren’t willing to try.)
An American manufacturer will generally be more willing to agree to requirements they might not be able to meet, as they will make an effort to meet them, and inform you early on when their effort fails. (This can be frustrating, as it feels like they’ve surprised you.)
A British manufacturer tends to be somewhere in between, they will initially flag the difficult requirement in an understated way, gradually becoming less understated as the problem grows. So there’s a hint of the German immediate no, and they ramp up to the American “So, it turns out…”.
Where this gets quite dramatically different is when you venture outside of the West.
The Japanese way is to continually promise fulfillment while conspicuously making no progress on it. It can be quite odd to experience - until you realize they’re trying to get you to notice the contradiction, so you can conclude for yourself that the requirement isn’t possible for them, and then reach out and relieve them of the obligation. It has the same function as the American “So, it turns out…”, it’s just obfuscated with politeness. Without awareness of this you can get into some really difficult situations.
The Chinese way is even more wild to Westerners. Their solution for a requirement they can’t fulfill is to produce a small sample of parts that do meet the requirement and give you those first. The idea is that you can use those to show your boss that the requirements have been met.
For instance, a German manufacturer will generally tell you “no, we cannot achieve that” on the initial proposal and won’t agree to any requirement they aren’t completely confident they can meet. (This can be frustrating as it feels like they aren’t willing to try.)
An American manufacturer will generally be more willing to agree to requirements they might not be able to meet, as they will make an effort to meet them, and inform you early on when their effort fails. (This can be frustrating, as it feels like they’ve surprised you.)
A British manufacturer tends to be somewhere in between, they will initially flag the difficult requirement in an understated way, gradually becoming less understated as the problem grows. So there’s a hint of the German immediate no, and they ramp up to the American “So, it turns out…”.
Where this gets quite dramatically different is when you venture outside of the West.
The Japanese way is to continually promise fulfillment while conspicuously making no progress on it. It can be quite odd to experience - until you realize they’re trying to get you to notice the contradiction, so you can conclude for yourself that the requirement isn’t possible for them, and then reach out and relieve them of the obligation. It has the same function as the American “So, it turns out…”, it’s just obfuscated with politeness. Without awareness of this you can get into some really difficult situations.
The Chinese way is even more wild to Westerners. Their solution for a requirement they can’t fulfill is to produce a small sample of parts that do meet the requirement and give you those first. The idea is that you can use those to show your boss that the requirements have been met.
A couple of those approaches result in building things that work, efficiently at scale. The rest don’t.
It’s tempting to think this, and I’ve thought this way before, but I don’t think it’s true. All of the cultures mentioned in my comment are manufacturing powerhouses - by most measures, each has (at different points) been literally the best in the world at manufacturing. I don’t think you can get that without being able to build things that work, efficiently, at scale.
I do think it’s true that some cultural approaches are so incompatible with each other that they will never be able to work together efficiently at scale, but each culture is internally consistent and knows how to operate within itself.
I do think it’s true that some cultural approaches are so incompatible with each other that they will never be able to work together efficiently at scale, but each culture is internally consistent and knows how to operate within itself.
Anecdotally as a non-UK person, when British people complain about something, I think it means they're trying to make friends with you.
As a Canadian, I can reveal that when someone says "I'm sorry," what they tend to mean is, "I'm not going to pay."
Witticisms aside, manifestations of temprament across cultures are ridiculously diverse. If there were such a thing as a type-A-minus personality, I might fall into that category, where one presumes others take responsibility for their own words and actions. The excessive submissiveness in some cultures (calling people sir, inability to decline, etc) is difficult not to interpret as a form of perfidy and passive aggression, where if you aren't taking responsibility for the conversation, it implies I must. By some cultures I mean west of Nevada.
As an anglo, my interactions with people from France are predictably funny, and the effect of the intellectual sparring yields some amazing solutions, but resolving that we have the mutual dignity of peers tends to take a few rounds. If I were to characterize what people interpret as Canadian niceness, it's that we are typically raised to treat malice as an inferior sentiment. Even though it may be real and meaningful, mainly it means you're losing. As a result, we produce some uniquely insufferable pricks, but if you're wondering how someone can seem so oblivious to insult, this detail might provide some useful context.
As a Canadian, I can reveal that when someone says "I'm sorry," what they tend to mean is, "I'm not going to pay."
Witticisms aside, manifestations of temprament across cultures are ridiculously diverse. If there were such a thing as a type-A-minus personality, I might fall into that category, where one presumes others take responsibility for their own words and actions. The excessive submissiveness in some cultures (calling people sir, inability to decline, etc) is difficult not to interpret as a form of perfidy and passive aggression, where if you aren't taking responsibility for the conversation, it implies I must. By some cultures I mean west of Nevada.
As an anglo, my interactions with people from France are predictably funny, and the effect of the intellectual sparring yields some amazing solutions, but resolving that we have the mutual dignity of peers tends to take a few rounds. If I were to characterize what people interpret as Canadian niceness, it's that we are typically raised to treat malice as an inferior sentiment. Even though it may be real and meaningful, mainly it means you're losing. As a result, we produce some uniquely insufferable pricks, but if you're wondering how someone can seem so oblivious to insult, this detail might provide some useful context.
This is very similar, but somehow not the same as this "The Culture Map" [0],
which I thought was great and would highly recommend.
https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Map-INTL-ED-Decoding/dp/16103...
https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Map-INTL-ED-Decoding/dp/16103...
The article is literally a summary of this book.
But there is no link to the book or the author. That's why I was confused.
It's the second sentence of the article.
Whoops I forgot to link to the book or make it clear it's a book summary.
These things are sometimes dangerous.
I have had Americans use "what the British mean when they say ..." on me and colleagues and it has backfired badly.
If it were a condescending guide for "how women think" (for example) then it would rightly be thrown out as trash.
Turns out that people are individuals and generalisations of "You are X so you are thinking/will do Y" are not useful.
Use with caution.
I have had Americans use "what the British mean when they say ..." on me and colleagues and it has backfired badly.
If it were a condescending guide for "how women think" (for example) then it would rightly be thrown out as trash.
Turns out that people are individuals and generalisations of "You are X so you are thinking/will do Y" are not useful.
Use with caution.
The book gets into that a little bit (at least what I read in the Amazon preview), the gist was it's very Not Great to say "You're an American so you'll do this", but rather to say "American business culture generally expects this", which is more accurate.
Despite being American, I've had a boss literally ask me to "read their mind" on something, I'm shocked I outlasted them in the company despite my low rank compared to them. Luckily for me subsequent leadership was more forthright.
Despite being American, I've had a boss literally ask me to "read their mind" on something, I'm shocked I outlasted them in the company despite my low rank compared to them. Luckily for me subsequent leadership was more forthright.
Apparently this is also how the Brexit happened ;)
Legend has it that David Cameron asked Merkel. She said "No". He thought it means he can get what he wants – only to find out later, that indeed a German "no" is a clear and tight "no". But by then he already fell over his rhetoric...
Legend has it that David Cameron asked Merkel. She said "No". He thought it means he can get what he wants – only to find out later, that indeed a German "no" is a clear and tight "no". But by then he already fell over his rhetoric...
David Cameron's understanding of the word "no" has always been a bit suspect [1]. He took Yes, Minister too literally.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate
> One example she gives is math class: In France, students are taught to calculate pi as a class before using it in a formula.
As a French, I don't think I ever calculated pi, we were just handed the formulas and told to use it and I don't think I saw an exercise on how to calculate pi for a few years (or maybe I didn't saw it at school...)
As a French, I don't think I ever calculated pi, we were just handed the formulas and told to use it and I don't think I saw an exercise on how to calculate pi for a few years (or maybe I didn't saw it at school...)
> As a French, I don't think I ever calculated pi, we were just handed the formulas and told to use it and I don't think I saw an exercise on how to calculate pi for a few years (or maybe I didn't saw it at school...)
The PI example might be slightly exaggerated but it is not such a far fetch.
For my generation, most advanced Mathematics were taught in France by first a theorem proof and then by an example on how to use it. I do not know if it is still the case nowadays.
The PI example might be slightly exaggerated but it is not such a far fetch.
For my generation, most advanced Mathematics were taught in France by first a theorem proof and then by an example on how to use it. I do not know if it is still the case nowadays.
I remember learning how to approximate pi at around 10 years old. Not in France.
The article has some good examples but the book seems little more than a repackaging of the Hofstede model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede%27s_cultural_dimensio... These models can be useful but they shouldn't be taken as set in stone, objective descriptions and in a specific situation it is always hard to tell if it is a culture thing or a personality thing.
"The Culture Map" is an American perspective on cultural diversity.
Other models and research exist.
- "Trompenaars's model of national culture differences"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompenaars%27s_model_of_natio...
Other models and research exist.
- "Trompenaars's model of national culture differences"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompenaars%27s_model_of_natio...
I don’t have a link to the book, but;
Peng, M.W. (2022). Global Strategy. 5th Edition. Cengage.
is an excellent read for navigating foreign cultures in business. I believe there may now be a 6th edition of the book. Highly recommend to anyone with an interest in global business strategy.
Wonderful article and a fantastic example of how there’s a big gap between being fluent in English and being fluent in English, especially the English that your counter-party is using.
Took me forever to get used to California English after I moved here from the slavic part of Europe. Still find a lot of it utterly boneheaded, but at least I know what’s going on and can cope … at great cost to personal sanity.
It will never not irk me when people say ”Please feel free to X” when they mean ”It is paramount that you do X”
Took me forever to get used to California English after I moved here from the slavic part of Europe. Still find a lot of it utterly boneheaded, but at least I know what’s going on and can cope … at great cost to personal sanity.
It will never not irk me when people say ”Please feel free to X” when they mean ”It is paramount that you do X”
Do you have some examples of the language seeming boneheaded? Sounds interesting.
Race condition, just edited :)
> It will never not irk me when people say ”Please feel free to X” when they mean ”It is paramount that you do X”
Another big one is when people say “Not my favorite”, but mean “I hate this”.
And a cause of great confusion in the workplace: “Can we do X?” meaning “You should do X, I am delegating this task to you”
And then there’s the whole genre of “corporate speak” memes like what “Per my last email” really means.
On a more personal note, the California Yes is super frustrating when making plans with people. Just because someone said Yes, does not mean they have any intention of actually showing up. They might get a headache an hour or so before the planned meeting time. Headaches are very popular in California it seems.
> It will never not irk me when people say ”Please feel free to X” when they mean ”It is paramount that you do X”
Another big one is when people say “Not my favorite”, but mean “I hate this”.
And a cause of great confusion in the workplace: “Can we do X?” meaning “You should do X, I am delegating this task to you”
And then there’s the whole genre of “corporate speak” memes like what “Per my last email” really means.
On a more personal note, the California Yes is super frustrating when making plans with people. Just because someone said Yes, does not mean they have any intention of actually showing up. They might get a headache an hour or so before the planned meeting time. Headaches are very popular in California it seems.
Other examples that I have found difficult
1) My wife (native English), when she is asking me to do something , always says "Would you like to...?" eg "Would you like to do the dishes?" To which, the answer for me (English first language, but born and raised in Africa) is "No", because these sorts of chores are things I do in spite of not wanting to do them because I know they are necessary. I've since learned that I actually would like to do the dishes in those cases and perhaps just don't realise.
2) A lot of time when I am leading a team or giving instructions, people from certain cultures get confused because I always ask with the word "Please" eg "Please could you get this analysis to me by close of business so I can work on it tomorrow morning while you're sleeping?". For me that is a very specific and clear instruction, but in some cultures it seems if something is asked with a "please" that means it's a favour rather than an instruction, so will lead to mixed results until we get used to each other.
1) My wife (native English), when she is asking me to do something , always says "Would you like to...?" eg "Would you like to do the dishes?" To which, the answer for me (English first language, but born and raised in Africa) is "No", because these sorts of chores are things I do in spite of not wanting to do them because I know they are necessary. I've since learned that I actually would like to do the dishes in those cases and perhaps just don't realise.
2) A lot of time when I am leading a team or giving instructions, people from certain cultures get confused because I always ask with the word "Please" eg "Please could you get this analysis to me by close of business so I can work on it tomorrow morning while you're sleeping?". For me that is a very specific and clear instruction, but in some cultures it seems if something is asked with a "please" that means it's a favour rather than an instruction, so will lead to mixed results until we get used to each other.
> On a more personal note, the California Yes is super frustrating when making plans with people. Just because someone said Yes, does not mean they have any intention of actually showing up. They might get a headache an hour or so before the planned meeting time. Headaches are very popular in California it seems.
The Californian 'Yes' sounds like the Japan one.
British understatement gets me in trouble when communicating with americans. In the British to American dictionary, 'I would prefer not' becomes 'I wont'.
The Californian 'Yes' sounds like the Japan one.
British understatement gets me in trouble when communicating with americans. In the British to American dictionary, 'I would prefer not' becomes 'I wont'.
I realised that “It’s okay” can have three very different meanings:
“It’s okay!” => (reassuringly), it’s fine, perhaps even great.
“It’s okay” => (honestly), it’s neither good nor bad.
“It’s okay” => (politely) This is terrible.
For some reason non-native speakers and the occasional yank have problems with this.
“It’s okay!” => (reassuringly), it’s fine, perhaps even great.
“It’s okay” => (honestly), it’s neither good nor bad.
“It’s okay” => (politely) This is terrible.
For some reason non-native speakers and the occasional yank have problems with this.
> For some reason non-native speakers
Here's where it gets even better as a slavic person – when I say "This is okay, but have you thought about flaws A, B, and C?" it means that your idea is so good that it's worthy of critique. To an American it sounds like I just started a scorched earth campaign against their ego.
Here's where it gets even better as a slavic person – when I say "This is okay, but have you thought about flaws A, B, and C?" it means that your idea is so good that it's worthy of critique. To an American it sounds like I just started a scorched earth campaign against their ego.
Huh. I wouldn't take it that way (depending on tone of voice). I would not quite take it as "it's good enough to criticize", either. I would take it as my idea was neutral, and here are some flaws, which if I could fix them might turn it into a good idea.
"Would you like to donate to [x cause] today?"
"That's okay" => No.
"That's okay" => No.
> British understatement gets me in trouble when communicating with americans. In the British to American dictionary, 'I would prefer not' becomes 'I wont'.
It seems quite a few of the Americans you speak to haven't read Melville's "Bartleby". You'll not find a more emphatic, "I would prefer not" in literature.
It seems quite a few of the Americans you speak to haven't read Melville's "Bartleby". You'll not find a more emphatic, "I would prefer not" in literature.
In geek terms, the Japanese hai is not "yes", it's "ack": it's an acknowledgement that your message has been received, not validation that the receiver agrees with it, much less intends to do anything about it.
I have found the Japanese “ok” more confusing than hai, since its an English word used slightly differently. I have tried to explain to Japanese people that the English “ok” is like a minimal agreement not showing any great enthusiasm, but because it has a neutral or even positive nuance they keep using it in English in situations where it makes it sound like they are reluctantly agreeing.
I thought it was called the California No? "Oh ya totally let's hang out!!" (you're never gonna hang out)
I've lived in LA for over 25 years. I think part of the reason things are like this is that the sheer amount of people here make it hard to know if you are dealing with a person who is going to end up being a nut or not. This town is also full of narcissists and leeches who want to use you. I've let people into my life that I seriously regretted later. After enough of those you start getting more cagey. It's a shame really. Whenever I go somewhere else I am reminded how much more genuine people can be and how I need to be more mindful of what I say. Words hold a lot more power outside of the LA bubble. In a funny way we are much more like the British in this way.
For example, locals know not to make eye contact while out and about. Not because we are dicks, but because if you happen to lock eyes with someone, theres a non zero chance they're gonna attack you or ask you for money etc. Take a ride on public transit if you don't believe me.
I've lived in LA for over 25 years. I think part of the reason things are like this is that the sheer amount of people here make it hard to know if you are dealing with a person who is going to end up being a nut or not. This town is also full of narcissists and leeches who want to use you. I've let people into my life that I seriously regretted later. After enough of those you start getting more cagey. It's a shame really. Whenever I go somewhere else I am reminded how much more genuine people can be and how I need to be more mindful of what I say. Words hold a lot more power outside of the LA bubble. In a funny way we are much more like the British in this way.
For example, locals know not to make eye contact while out and about. Not because we are dicks, but because if you happen to lock eyes with someone, theres a non zero chance they're gonna attack you or ask you for money etc. Take a ride on public transit if you don't believe me.
> For example, locals know not to make eye contact while out and about
I believe this is a city thing. We have the same back home in Ljubljana.
The social contract in cities seems to be one of politely ignoring each others’ existence.
I believe this is a city thing. We have the same back home in Ljubljana.
The social contract in cities seems to be one of politely ignoring each others’ existence.
My theory. The social contract varies in proportion with the available resources.
In cities the friendliness is missing because you don't need to rely on others for food/water or anything else, you can just purchase it nearby.
When resources run out that's where the social contract becomes more social.
Camping trip and need a match to start your campfire? Your neighbor will happily chat with you.
Power outage. People on the street become way more friendly.
Transit failure. People are more likely to help arrange transport or chat as they wait.
Snowstorm snowed you in. That's how you meet the new neighbors who are also out shovelling.
In cities the friendliness is missing because you don't need to rely on others for food/water or anything else, you can just purchase it nearby.
When resources run out that's where the social contract becomes more social.
Camping trip and need a match to start your campfire? Your neighbor will happily chat with you.
Power outage. People on the street become way more friendly.
Transit failure. People are more likely to help arrange transport or chat as they wait.
Snowstorm snowed you in. That's how you meet the new neighbors who are also out shovelling.
I sort of interpreted it an inverse way:
In a city, the limited resources are emotional/social energy, sense of privacy, etc. So the social contract is to conserve them by politely not noticing each other; thereby allowing people to maintain the reserves necessary to get through the day.
In a city, the limited resources are emotional/social energy, sense of privacy, etc. So the social contract is to conserve them by politely not noticing each other; thereby allowing people to maintain the reserves necessary to get through the day.
As someone who has lived in London for a long time and spent a lot of time in NYC, no eye contact (especially on public transport) is a hard and fast "big city quality-of-life" rule. If someone makes eye contact with me on public transport they are almost always crazy, intoxicated or some kind of tourist/visitor.
These are good observations on how to deal with managers and acquaintances. It’s more rewarding to invest your energy in close friends and family, although this doesn’t always come easily if you’ve recently moved to a new place.
Japanese... そうですね（soudesune | "riiighhtt....）
it never means a thing related to the subject.
Reminds me of the book "Kiss, Bow, Or Shake Hands" by Morrison and Conaway.
There are many dimensions of cultural differences and values to navigate, including:
- Physical social distance
- Collective - individualist
- Transactional - social
- Generosity - frugality
- Past-, present-, or future-centric
- Hierarchy - egalitarian
- Blunt - saving face
- Adversarial - cooperative
- Organic - rigid process
There are many dimensions of cultural differences and values to navigate, including:
- Physical social distance
- Collective - individualist
- Transactional - social
- Generosity - frugality
- Past-, present-, or future-centric
- Hierarchy - egalitarian
- Blunt - saving face
- Adversarial - cooperative
- Organic - rigid process
Surely, Dutch understand the concepts of sarcasm, irony and euphemism.
This is a generalization. Being verbose/explicit is not seen favorably in every industry in the US.
Great article. More cross cultural knowledge and appreciation is sorely needed!
related research:
"Talking with tact: Polite language as a balance between kindness and informativity"
Keywords: Politeness; computational modeling; communicative goals; pragmatics
PDF: https://langcog.stanford.edu/papers_new/yoon-2016-cogsci.pdf
"Discussion"
"Why would a speaker ever say something that is not maximally truthful and informative? Communication is often examined from the perspective of successful information transfer from speaker to listener. In the social realm, however, communication also can serve the social function of making the listener feel good and saving her face. We proposed here that intuitively “polite” utterances arise from the desire to be kind (i.e. save face). A cooperative speaker then tries to balance the goals to be kind and to be informative, and produces utterances of varying degrees of politeness that reflect this balance. To test this proposal, we examined inferential judgments on a speaker’s utterance, which was a potentially face-threatening evaluation of the listener’s performance. As we predicted, participants’ inferences about the true state of the world differed based on what the speaker said and whether the speaker’s intended goal was to be honest, nice or mean (Expt. 2). We were also able to predict participants’ attributions of different social goals to speakers depending on how well the literal utterance meaning matched the actual rating the performance deserved (Expt. 3). The model presented here relates to other work done in game-theoretic pragmatics. Van Rooy (2003) uses a gametheoretic analysis of polite requests (“Could you possibly take me home?”) to argue the purpose of polite language is to align the preferences of interlocutors. Our notion of social utility Usocial is similar in that it motivates speakers to signal worlds that make the listener feel good. Van Rooy’s analysis, however, relies on the notion that polite language is costly (in a social way e.g., by reducing one’s social status or incurring social debt to one’s conversational partner) but it’s not clear how the polite behaviors explored in our experiments (not polite requests) would incur any cost to speaker or listener. Our model derives its predictions by construing the speaker utility as a collection of possible goals (here, epistemic and social goals). The speech-acts themselves are not costly. Will machines ever be polite? Politeness requires more than merely saying conventionalized words (please, thank you) at the right moments; it requires a balance of informativity and kindness. Politeness is not an exception to rational communication; it is one important element of rational communication, serving a key social function of maintaining relationships. We extended the Rational Speech Acts framework to include social utility as a motive for utterance production. This work takes a concrete step toward quantitative models of the nuances of polite speech. And it moves us closer to courteous computation—to computers that communicate with tact."
"Talking with tact: Polite language as a balance between kindness and informativity"
Keywords: Politeness; computational modeling; communicative goals; pragmatics
PDF: https://langcog.stanford.edu/papers_new/yoon-2016-cogsci.pdf
"Discussion"
"Why would a speaker ever say something that is not maximally truthful and informative? Communication is often examined from the perspective of successful information transfer from speaker to listener. In the social realm, however, communication also can serve the social function of making the listener feel good and saving her face. We proposed here that intuitively “polite” utterances arise from the desire to be kind (i.e. save face). A cooperative speaker then tries to balance the goals to be kind and to be informative, and produces utterances of varying degrees of politeness that reflect this balance. To test this proposal, we examined inferential judgments on a speaker’s utterance, which was a potentially face-threatening evaluation of the listener’s performance. As we predicted, participants’ inferences about the true state of the world differed based on what the speaker said and whether the speaker’s intended goal was to be honest, nice or mean (Expt. 2). We were also able to predict participants’ attributions of different social goals to speakers depending on how well the literal utterance meaning matched the actual rating the performance deserved (Expt. 3). The model presented here relates to other work done in game-theoretic pragmatics. Van Rooy (2003) uses a gametheoretic analysis of polite requests (“Could you possibly take me home?”) to argue the purpose of polite language is to align the preferences of interlocutors. Our notion of social utility Usocial is similar in that it motivates speakers to signal worlds that make the listener feel good. Van Rooy’s analysis, however, relies on the notion that polite language is costly (in a social way e.g., by reducing one’s social status or incurring social debt to one’s conversational partner) but it’s not clear how the polite behaviors explored in our experiments (not polite requests) would incur any cost to speaker or listener. Our model derives its predictions by construing the speaker utility as a collection of possible goals (here, epistemic and social goals). The speech-acts themselves are not costly. Will machines ever be polite? Politeness requires more than merely saying conventionalized words (please, thank you) at the right moments; it requires a balance of informativity and kindness. Politeness is not an exception to rational communication; it is one important element of rational communication, serving a key social function of maintaining relationships. We extended the Rational Speech Acts framework to include social utility as a motive for utterance production. This work takes a concrete step toward quantitative models of the nuances of polite speech. And it moves us closer to courteous computation—to computers that communicate with tact."
What I'd generalize is that on technical matters, there are few communication issues across cultures. People are able to make themselves understood and collaborate, even in the face of language barriers. On the other hand, even simple business discussions within one's own culture can because quickly ridiculous, with big misunderstandings, nobody saying what they mean, politics, etc. Cynically I think it's because business is mostly bullshit so comes down to irrelevant political stuff.