• About Us
  • Subscribe
  • Contact us
Leadership & Organisations - BLOG

Avoiding Culture Clashes When Making Decisions

Erin Meyer, INSEAD Affiliate Professor of Organisational Behaviour |

Should your boss make the decisions for your group? Or should you, as a team member, have a say in them? The answer may depend on the norms of your cultural background. If you have a multicultural team, you can’t work effectively until you’ve addressed these differences in style.

When I first moved to Europe, my new Swedish boss, Per Engman, introduced himself as a typical consensus-building manager. Conscious of my American roots, he explained that this was the best way to ensure that everyone was on board and he hoped that I would be patient with this very Swedish process.

I was initially delighted with the prospect of working with an inclusive boss, who listened carefully to his staff and weighed everyone’s views before making a decision. But after my first few weeks, the emails had started mounting up. One morning, this message arrived:

Hey team,

I thought we should meet for an annual face-to-face on December 6th. We could focus the meeting on how to be more client-centric. What do you think?


Our firm was a small consultancy with more work than we could handle and my colleagues, mainly energetic young Swedes, worked long hours to meet targets and keep our clients happy. I didn’t feel I had much of an opinion on Per’s question, so my automatic response was to hit the delete button and get back to work. But in the hours that followed, my Swedish colleagues began sending their responses, adding suggestions and views on what to focus on. Occasionally Per would inject an email with a few comments. Slowly, they began to reach agreement. I then got an individual email:

Hi Erin,

Haven’t heard from you, what do you think?


I really wanted to respond by saying, “I have absolutely no opinion, please make a decision so we can get back to work.” But remembering how delighted I felt when Per had told me that he favoured consensual decision-making, I simply replied that I supported whatever the group decided.

As the weeks went on, many other topics got the same treatment and I realised my first impression of this style of working was not at all how I liked to work. I now understood why Per felt he had to explain this consensual approach to me. He later described how it feels to be Swedish working with Americans, who are “too busy to be good team members” and “always trying to impose a decision for decision’s sake without soliciting feedback”.

Historical roots

As with all cultural characteristics, these differing styles of decision-making have historical roots. American pioneers, many of whom had fled the formal hierarchical structures of their homelands, put emphasis on speed and individualism. The successful pioneers were those who arrived first and worked hard, regarding mistakes as an inevitable side-effect of speed. Americans therefore, naturally developed a dislike for too much discussion, preferring to make decisions quickly.

In a culture like that of the United States, the decision-making responsibility is invested largely in an individual.  Decisions tend to be made quickly, early in the process, by one person. But each decision is also flexible—a decision, as I put it, with lowercase d. As more discussions occur, new information arises, or differing opinions surface and decisions may be easily revisited or altered. So plans are subject to continual revision—which means that implementation can take quite a long time.

In a consensual culture, it is the decision-making that may take a long time, since everyone is consulted. But once the decision is made, the implementation is rapid, since everyone is on board.  And once the decision is made, it is fixed.  Once the group makes a choice, the decision is unlikely to change.  A decision with a capital D, one might say.  A good example of this phenomenon is the Japanese ringi decision-making process, a very consensual decision-making protocol.

Jack Sheldon, a British executive who attended a seminar that I ran for Astellas, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, shared stories about his mishaps while trying to work with Tokyo-based managers. Following a problem with a particular product, a decision had to be made regarding whether to discontinue its development. Sheldon was invited to Tokyo to give his view, which was strongly that testing should continue.

“One of the Japanese managers gave an opening presentation, and during his speech he presented an argument followed by conclusions for why the testing should stop. I sensed that the others were in agreement with his comments. In fact, it seemed that the decision had already been finalised within the group. I presented my slides still feeling that my point of view would win out. But although people were still very polite, it was clear that the Japanese managers were 100 percent aligned against continued testing. I gave all of my arguments and presented all of the facts, but the group wouldn’t budge.”

What Sheldon hadn’t understood was that before Japanese company members sign off on a proposal, consensus building starts with informal, face-to-face discussions. This process of informally making a proposal, getting input, and solidifying support is called nemawashi. Literally meaning “root-binding”, nemawashi is a gardening term that refers to the process of preparing the roots of a plant or tree for transplanting, which protects them from damage. Similarly, nemawashi protects a Japanese organisation from damage caused by disagreement or lack of commitment and follow-through.

At Astellas, the ringi process is even managed by a dedicated software programme.

Avoiding culture clashes

Both consensual and unilateral styles of decision-making can be effective, but members of a global team generally have expectations about decision-making based on their own cultural norms. This can make clashes difficult to understand and manage. If you find yourself working with a team more familiar with consensual decision-making, try applying the following strategies:

  • Expect the decision-making process to take longer and involve more meetings and correspondence
  • Be patient, even when opinions diverge
  • Check in with your counterparts regularly to show your commitment
  • Cultivate informal contacts within the team to monitor the progress of decision-making
  • Resist the temptation to push for a quick decision

On the other hand, if you are working with a group of people who favour a more individualist approach to decision-making, these techniques might be useful:

  • Expect decisions to be made by one person (often the boss) with less discussion
  • Be ready to follow a decision that does not include your input
  • If you are in charge, solicit input but strive to make decisions quickly
  • When the group is divided, suggest a vote
  • Remain flexible, decisions are rarely set in stone

If your team includes members from both a consensual and unilateral decision-making culture, problems could be avoided by explicitly discussing and agreeing upon a decision-making method during the early stages of collaboration. Consider defining the parameters of the ultimate decision: whether it should be by vote or by the boss; whether 100 percent agreement is needed; and how open the group will be to later changes. The more those on both sides of the cultural divide talk to each other, the more natural it becomes to adjust to one another.

Erin Meyer is an Affiliate Professor of Organisational Behaviour at INSEAD where she is also the Programme Director of Managing Global Virtual Teams and Management Skills for International Business two of INSEAD's executive development programmes. She is also the author of The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. You can follow her on Twitter @ErinMeyerINSEAD .

Follow INSEAD Knowledge on Twitter and Facebook


Didier Baudois,

Hi Erin,
And thanks for sharing your experience.

You give interesting feedback but you don't tell us how to find success in such way of work. On the opposite, you seem to leave a bad omen: we know you didn't like to work like this (because you said it) but you neither tell us what you explicitly did (did you leave ? did you adapt ? we don't know) nor you tell us if or how you found a way to deal with this situation.

You said you had trouble to find your place in this team. The reason is obvious and it is a question of role, through this story, you never changed your point of view, you were a tool, you were a laborer and your only reason to live there was to work.
But you had the opportunity to change your point of view and add a role to your portfolio. You simply had to consider you had a double hat in this company, one as a working force, the other one as a stakeholder.
This cognitive reframing would have allowed you to act differently: when Per asks you about the future of the society, you consider the question is asked to the "working force" part of you but when you answer to Per, it is the stakeholder part of you who is answering.
You wouldn't have to face any displeasure in this situation because, according to your American background, you would have agreed that it is reasonable that Per asks the working force about the working conditions. And you would have also reasonably agreed to plead your case as a stakeholder in front of the others because this company was a little bit your own company because you worked for it and received money from it.
And you would have had a great opportunity to show how real is the American saying "When life gives you lemons, just make lemonade…"

About the story of Jack Sheldon, his mistake was he didn't understand how to cope with a consensus culture. The solution was easy: he just had to make as if his point of view had no importance at all (which was the case considering that the decision was still made by the Japanese managers). But it would have been crucial for him to present his position with great details and precision, a kind of textbook case, in front of the other managers, adding BEFORE presenting his position that he still realized the decision was made AND he agreed with it.
Acting like this, on the explicit level of the communication, he still acknowledges the correctness of the decision made by his Japanese fellows. Consequently, the rest of the discussion is deprived of any pressure (the Japanese won) but presenting his case in front of them, at the implicit level of the communication, he makes them standing together with him in the obligation of considering this alternative. Presenting his position with great clarity, he makes them implicitly aware of this option and, therefore responsible of potential consequences.
It is a question of homeostasis, as long as Jack puts a great pressure in defending his position, he forces his Japanese partners to stick together to create the counter-pressure able to sustain his pressure. Consequently, through the pressure he used to defend his position, he gave the stick to be beaten with…
Had he presented his case without any pressure, he would have deprived the Japanese managers of any power, any sticking substance and forced them to examine his ideas.

It's like in Judo practice, your opponent will win through using YOUR force against you ! Give him NO force and he will simply have no power to beat you. That's it.

Have a great day !

Erin Meyer,

Hi Didier - All the details you ask for are in Chapter 5 of my book The Culture Map. A blog is short so I can only say so much! Thanks for your comment.

Add a comment Already a member?
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.