You will be able to recognise where you and your colleagues sit on directness and adjust.
Charmaine, a product manager at a software firm in Singapore, asks her team on a call whether the new feature can ship by the end of the month. Tom, who joined from the Sydney office, says, "No, not a chance, the testing alone takes three weeks." Dewi, an engineer in Jakarta, says, "Yes, we can try. The testing may be a bit tight." Charmaine writes down one no and one yes.
Four weeks later the feature isn't ready. Tom was right, and so, in her own way, was Dewi. Her "yes, we can try, it may be tight" was, to anyone listening for it, a careful no. Charmaine missed it because she was listening to the words and not to what sat around them.
Erin Meyer, a professor at the business school INSEAD, wrote The Culture Map to explain moments like this. Her eight scales are communicating, evaluating, persuading, leading, deciding, trusting, disagreeing and scheduling, and on each one a culture sits somewhere between two ends.
This lesson focuses on the two that cause most everyday friction: communicating, which is about how explicit people are, and evaluating, which is about how directly they give negative feedback. Lesson 8.2, Hierarchy, face and hearing an indirect no, picks up leading and disagreeing.
The communicating scale runs from low-context to high-context.
In a low-context culture, good communication is explicit, simple and clear. People say what they mean, and messages are taken at face value. Repeating a point and putting it in writing are seen as helpful, because they reduce the chance of being misunderstood. The listener isn't expected to read between the lines, and if a message is unclear, that's the speaker's fault.
In a high-context culture, much of the message is implied. People rely on shared background, the relationship and what is left unsaid. Good communication is layered, and a good listener picks up the meaning around the words. Spelling everything out can seem slightly patronising, as if you don't trust the listener to understand.
Neither end is better. Each works well among people who share it, and each causes problems when mixed. A low-context speaker can seem blunt or even rude to a high-context listener. A high-context speaker can seem vague or evasive to a low-context listener, as Dewi did to Charmaine.
Most Singapore teams don't sit at one point on the scale. A single team can include people who grew up in Singapore, Malaysia, India, China, the Philippines, Australia and Europe, plus Singaporeans who studied in London or worked in Shanghai, plus people who learned their work habits at a multinational and others who learned them at a family firm. Your colleagues' habits come from how they were raised and from every workplace they've passed through. Nationality is one input among many, and a poor guide to any single person.
So the same word can carry different meanings in one meeting. When a colleague says "yes", it might mean "I agree and will do it". It might mean "I heard you". Or it might mean "this is hard for me to refuse in front of everyone". Don't guess. Check, in a way that makes the honest answer easy:
"Thanks, Dewi. What would we need for it to be realistic? And if it's not, what date would be?"
That question gives Dewi room to say the real answer without having to say "no" to her manager's face.
The evaluating scale is about criticism. At one end, cultures give negative feedback directly: frankly, often in front of others, with words like "totally" or "absolutely" that make it stronger. At the other end, criticism is indirect: softened and given privately, often wrapped in positive messages, with words like "slightly" or "maybe" that make it gentler.
Meyer points out that this scale doesn't always match the communicating scale. Some people are explicit in everyday work and still very gentle with criticism, while others imply most things and yet give blunt negative feedback. You can't predict one from the other, so watch both.
An example of how this goes wrong: a colleague used to indirect feedback tells you "the report is quite good, maybe you could look at section three again". She may mean section three needs serious work. If you're used to direct feedback, you'll hear "quite good" and file the report. The reverse also happens. Direct feedback can land as a personal attack on someone used to indirect delivery, as lesson 7.3, Give feedback to your peers and your manager, warned.
The most useful idea in Meyer's work may be that positions on the scales are relative. What matters is the gap between you and the other person, not where either of you sits in absolute terms.
Take Charmaine. Tom may find her roundabout. To Dewi she can come across as surprisingly blunt, and both of them are describing the same manager accurately from where they stand. So "I'm just direct" or "I'm just polite" is never a full description of yourself, because the answer changes with the person across the table.
The practical skill is to notice the gap and adjust a little in their direction. With a more high-context colleague, soften criticism and ask open questions. With a more low-context colleague, say plainly what you need and put it in writing.
Think of three colleagues you work with often, ideally from different backgrounds. Recall a recent message or meeting with each one, and how they said yes, said no or gave criticism. Those memories are the best evidence you have of where they sit relative to you.
Place yourself and three colleagues from different backgrounds on the communicating and evaluating scales and note one adjustment for each.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).