Cross-cultural decision-making has its fans, particularly Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg. He once said, “I'm a big fan of having a team with different thoughts and backgrounds and experiences; that makes for a better enterprise and better decision-making.”
Conceptually, he’s right: Numerous studies have shown that decisions made by a team that includes people with a variety of experiences and perspectives do, in fact, generally make better decisions. Similarly, CultureWizard’s Global Mindset Index Study found that businesses achieve far more of their top strategic business priorities when they’re better at recognizing and adapting to other cultures’ work styles and behaviors.
However – and this is a big however – cross-cultural teams don’t make better decisions simply because they are cross-cultural. In fact, a multitude of cross-cultural perspectives will actually work against effective decision-making unless those involved understand the dynamics of decision-making, are aware of their own and others’ differing cultural preferences, and learn to manage both dynamics.
Thus, multi-cultural decision-making can be challenging even for people who are culturally savvy. One reason, according to INSEAD professor Erin Meyer, is that many people confuse authority with decision-making style. Dynamics that may seem incompatible – such as a strong hierarchy and a consensus-based decision-making style – are not incompatible at all (Japanese culture is proof of that).
Another challenge is self-awareness: understanding your own cultural preferences and their roots so that you can compare your preferences to those of people from other cultures and become more aware of the cross-cultural differences. CultureWizard CEO Charlene Solomon recently wrote about the key role of self-awareness for authentic leaders capable of effectively leading multi-cultural virtual teams.
Meeting the Challenge of Multi-Cultural Decision-Making
So, what are those cross-cultural decision-making dynamics and how can you manage them?
They start, of course, with our individual personalities (which, although fascinating, are beyond the scope of this discussion). Then there are the dynamics of the group itself. When it comes to leading (or contributing to) a cross-cultural team, you must start with the answers to these five key questions:
1. How do we define a “decision”?
2. What is the purpose of the decision?
3. Who contributes to the decision?
4. Who makes the decision?
5. Can the decision be changed?
Let’s explore each of these factors.
How do we define a “decision”? This is not a trick question. How we understand the import of decisions is very much shaped by our culture. For example, in Germany a decision is akin to a promise – a serious commitment to a particular path: If we have decided to do X, we will do X. But in the United States, a decision can be much more of the moment – a sometimes expedient choice made to keep a process moving forward. Therefore, the decision is subject to change in the light of new information or ideas.
You can see the cross-cultural problem here. A German who invests days or weeks of effort implementing a decision may be confused, de-motivated or even angry if the decision is subsequently changed. He or she may see the American as arbitrary, uncommitted, lacking focus or disrespectful. And the American may experience the German reaction as stubborn, inflexible or an indication that he or she is not a “team player.”
What is the purpose of the decision? Yes, the purpose of a decision is, well, to decide. But to what end? Decisions are never made in a vacuum. They are made within a culturally-derived framework, and it’s vital to understand that framework.
Considering the Relationship Dimension of the CultureWizard Intercultural Model®, Interpersonal cultures (such as China) usually make decisions in support of outcomes that either maintain or enrich existing relationships or help forge new ones. They take a long view. In this framework, it doesn’t make sense to make a decision today that may make it harder to do business with another person or organization in the future. Decision-making in this framework is often largely intuitive, given that it’s difficult to quantify relationships with data.
The framework is very different in Transactional cultures, such as Australia or Sweden. Decision-making in those cultures is often driven by a high need for achievement. Accordingly, decisions are usually results-focused and either solve problems or create opportunities. Decision-making in this framework is more focused on the short-term, more analytical (reliant on available data), and less intuitive.
Another dynamic that shapes the purpose of the decision is whether the culture is focused more on the individual or the group – the Group Dimension of the CultureWizard model. People operating within an Individual framework tend to make decisions based on what is best for themselves, whereas those from a Group framework tend to make decisions that are best for the common good.
At its best, cross-cultural decision-making will incorporate all these frameworks. It will find a balance between long- and short-term thinking, between honoring relationships and getting results, and between what’s best for individuals and for the whole. But a poorly managed cross-cultural team will simply talk past each other or, worse, inadvertently sabotage each other’s objectives.
Who contributes to the decision? Although they are sometimes confused – and there may be some overlap – contribution and consensus are not the same. Consider the Hierarchical Dimension. In Egalitarian cultures (such as Israel or the Netherlands), people are taught from an early age to ask questions, disagree or even challenge authority. Consequently, they also expect to participate in decision-making. They will share opinions, offer feedback and share their expertise. However, once they feel heard they are also often willing to accept and support a leader’s decision – even if it’s counter to their belief. This is likely in cultures that are both Egalitarian and favor a top-down decision-making style, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The process generally allows for faster decisions and for altering the decision based on new input.
In contrast, in a true consensus culture the leader is more facilitator than decision-maker. In Denmark, for example, planning a meeting may include several rounds of emails in which all participants weigh in. All opinions are more or less equal, and everyone is expected to participate. To people from Hierarchical cultures, this can seem a tedious and time-consuming process. However, implementing decisions often goes smoothly and quickly in this dynamic because all stakeholders are already bought in by the time the decision is made.
Who makes the decision? In Hierarchical countries, such as Korea or Nigeria, the culture demands deference to the leader. In those cultures, it would be seen as disrespectful to contradict a manager or to challenge a decision. Therefore, it’s very clear who makes the decision. In a true consensus culture, a decision is only final once all participants have agreed.
Can the decision be changed? As noted earlier, Germans generally see a decision as a promise. Therefore, once a decision is made it rarely gets altered. Decisions are rarely changed in consensus cultures, too, though for different reasons. There’s little pressure to change a group decision because all perspectives were already considered.
When decisions are made quickly – as they often are in India or Russia, where decisions are usually made by a sole authority figure – they are also more likely to be reconsidered.
Understanding these dynamics is vital, but not sufficient. Leaders of cross-cultural teams must also learn to manage them. The most effective thing you can do is to, yes, decide how decisions are going to be made – and then communicate your expectations. Decide:
· Who contributes to decisions – and what role they play.
· Who makes decisions.
· How people will know what’s been decided.
· How – and when – decisions are revisited.
Once you have communicated your broader expectations, be sure you also share your expectations for specific situations. For example, suppose you have a conference call scheduled that will involve members of a cross-cultural team. In advance of the call, let all participants know that you will be seeking input on five questions. State the questions, and identify the input you’re seeking. Let people know how their input will be used. Doing so makes individual and cultural perspectives less prominent than the dynamic of the work group.
Without taking such steps, you run the risk that in a multi-cultural team some cultures may dominate while others remain largely quiet. That would radically undermine the effectiveness of having a multi-cultural team in the first place. And that’s not a decision any leader wants to make.
Learn More: 
