Recognise where you and your colleagues sit on directness, and adjust how you communicate.
Write down the last time a colleague said "yes" to you in a meeting, and whether what you asked for then happened. If the answer was yes and the thing still didn't happen, the most likely cause is a difference in how the two of you communicate.
Charmaine is a product manager at a software firm in Singapore. On a team call, she asks whether the new feature can ship by the end of the month. Tom, who joined from the Sydney office, answers, "No, not a chance, the testing alone takes three weeks." Dewi, an engineer in Jakarta, answers, "Yes, we can try. The testing may be a bit tight." Charmaine writes down one no and one yes. Four weeks later the feature is not ready.
Tom turns out to be right. Dewi was also right in her own way. To anyone listening for it, her answer was a careful no. Charmaine missed it because she listened 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 misunderstandings like Charmaine's. Her framework has eight scales: communicating, evaluating, persuading, leading, deciding, trusting, disagreeing and scheduling. On each scale, a culture sits somewhere between two ends.
The two scales that cause the most everyday friction are communicating and evaluating. The communicating scale is about how explicit people are. The evaluating scale is about how directly people give negative feedback. Lesson 8.2, "Hierarchy, face and hearing an indirect no", covers the leading and disagreeing scales.
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 misunderstanding. The listener is not expected to read between the lines, and if a message is unclear, the speaker is at 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 the speaker doesn't trust the listener to understand.
Neither end is better. Each works well among people who share it and causes problems when the two are mixed. A low-context speaker can seem blunt or rude to a high-context listener. A high-context speaker can seem vague or evasive to a low-context listener, which is how Dewi came across 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. It can include Singaporeans who studied in London or worked in Shanghai, and people whose work habits come from a multinational next to others whose habits come from a family firm. Your colleagues' habits come from how they were raised and from every workplace they have passed through. Nationality is one input among many and a poor guide to any single person.
In one meeting, the same word can mean different things to different people. A "yes" might mean any of these:
"I agree and will do it." "I heard you." "This is hard for me to refuse in front of everyone."
Don't guess which one you have heard. Check, and do it in a way that makes the honest answer easy. Charmaine could have gone back to Dewi, thanked her, and asked what would be needed for the end-of-month deadline to be realistic, and if it isn't realistic, what date would be. A question like that lets Dewi give the real answer without having to say "no" to her manager's face. You can use the same approach for any plan: thank the person, ask what would make it realistic, and ask what date or alternative would work if it isn't.
The evaluating scale runs from direct to indirect. At the direct end, negative feedback is given frankly, often in front of others, and strengthened with words like "totally" or "absolutely". At the indirect end, criticism is softened and given privately, often wrapped in positive messages, with softening words like "slightly" or "maybe".
Picture a colleague used to indirect feedback who tells you, "The report is quite good, maybe you could look at section three again." She may mean that section three needs serious work. Someone used to direct feedback may hear "quite good" and file the report. It also goes the other way. As Lesson 7.3, "Give feedback to your peers and your manager", warned, direct feedback can land as a personal attack on someone used to indirect delivery.
Meyer points out that a person's place on the evaluating scale doesn't always match their place on the communicating scale. Some people are explicit in everyday work but very gentle with criticism. Others imply most things but give blunt negative feedback. You can't predict one position from the other, so watch both.
Possibly the most useful idea in Meyer's work is that positions on the scales are relative. What matters is the gap between you and the other person, and where either of you sits in absolute terms matters much less. Tom may find Charmaine roundabout, while Dewi may find her surprisingly blunt. Both descriptions are accurate from where each of them stands. For the same reason, "I'm just direct" or "I'm just polite" is never a full description of yourself, because it depends on who is across the table.
The practical skill is to notice the gap and adjust a little in the other person's direction. Look at each scale separately. With a colleague who is more high-context than you, soften your criticism and ask open questions. With a colleague who is more low-context than you, say plainly what you need and put it in writing.
Think of three colleagues you work with often, ideally from different backgrounds. For each one, recall a recent message or meeting 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, then write down one adjustment you could make for each.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).