Communication & Leadership Styles PDF

Chapter 2 - Communication Communication styles It is impossible to not communicate, we communicate by just existing What is communication? Noise can distort the message What do people think good communication is? „Say what you mean and mean what you say“ -> clear and ambiguous messa...

Chapter 2 - Communication Communication styles It is impossible to not communicate, we communicate by just existing What is communication? Noise can distort the message What do people think good communication is? „Say what you mean and mean what you say“ -> clear and ambiguous message „Tell them what you’re going to tell them, then tell them then tell them what you’ve told them.“ Talking clearly and straight  If you respond with no it’s innapropriate Reading the air Communication scale according to Meyer Where do these differences come from? Factors Language Influential concept: -> The Whorfian Hypothesis (Benjamin Lee Whorf) -> Thinking-for-Speaking Hypothesis Example: Japanese language has different meanings for words so you need to have more context, in France you also have many words History gives significant clue -> USA and Japan: Japanese people communicated more with each other so they have shared much more context whereas the USA they don’t have much history so they have to make message clearly High context cultures have long history whereas short shared history don’t What is good communication? It depends where you are on the scale How could people with different styles perceive each other? Cultural comparisons are relative -> where are the people on the scale in comparison to you -> tools for working with higher-context communication: -> tools for working with lower-context: Feedback Evaluation Individual motivation should be supported -> motivation = willigness of an individual to exert (spend) effort toward a goal Is motivation cultural? Cross-cultural (universal) work goals: 1. needed income 2. Interesting and satisfying experience 3. Contact with people The job characteristics model: 5 core dimensions: Skill variety, Task identity, task significance, autonomy, feedback What is the correct way to give feedback? Constructive criticism and destructive criticism -> varies by culture -> Get feedback right and seem fair and professional -> if not mistrust, missing room of improvement, destroying relationships -> women normally use downgrades Relative comparison!! 1. Blur the sender 2. Blur the receiver (teacher talks to the whole class instead of individual) 3. Blur the message so: politeness is in the ear of the listener Non-verbal communication Proxemics - distance between people Silence can play an important role in communication Exaggeration and repetition (arab people) Body language Eye contact (sometimes avoided sometimes appreciated) -> interpretation, duration touch (be aware of differences) Paralanguage Turn-talking Gestures Facial expressions (universal - anger, fear, disgust, happiness, sadness, surprise) Chapter 3 - Fast Thinking Are human beings capable of rational thought? Human nature -> we are generally rational and our thinking is normally reliable and sound -> when we experience strong emotions -> we depart from rationality But is this really true/predictable? What are other factors that influence our thinking? Design and flaws in cognition -> there is a design floor in or brain -> most of our judgement and our actions are appropriate most of the time and we rely on that, we allow ourselves to be guided by intuition, judgement, feelings and that is legitimate/justified -> BUT this is not always the case -> an objective observer can detect that -> this is linked on how we judge/perceive people and how we work with people -> biases reoccur predictably Intuition -> like a sixth sense -> you can sense it before your brain comes to a conclusion -> we feel like it is a supernatural occurrence but it’s not, happens all the time -> we can detect anger from other people from a person’s text or call -> it’s accurate interpretation of science / recognising what’s going on -> searching for an intuitive solution for example can sometimes fail -> we switch to slow thinking -> fast thinking is completely automatic thoughts like also intuition -> distinction between fast and slow thinking: the intuitive system is more influential in our behaviour than we might think, the way we act in our day to day basis System one -> fast thinking: happens automatically with no effort like intuition System two -> slow thinking: we have to allocate attention to it What is bias? Rooted in fast thinking Inclination/ preference/ predisposition about something sometimes even without knowing why Cognitive bias -> systematic errors in our brain that prevents us from being neutral when getting information Heuristics -> mental shortcuts Preference bias -> when you favour a group over another group -> example racism when hiring or gender bias Information bias -> when we use these categories to make assumptions for a person as a whole -> e.g. a man must be very productive -> they don’t have necessarily something to do with each other actually Structural bias -> when whole systems/institutional patterns are there that encourage discrimination prejudice towards a group officially or under a radar (e.g. in the past medicinals have been tested for practical reasons on men because they don’t have too many hormones ecc… -> now for example women would need a higher dosis) Information processing -> the brain’s ability to handle all the stimuli/perceptions/ informations that it’s exposed to all the time bias Can we trust our senses? Perception bias: Motion blindness -> if you focus on the green dot the yellow dots disappear -> we can’t always trust our senses Cognitive bias: -> Group memebership impacts information processing in humans What can be done to reduce bias? -> Bias reduction Only system 2 can reduce bias but takes time and effort -> there are ways and we need to implement them Procedures and methods —————> Making decisions in groups -> authority bias could be strong for example We have many effects taking place A -> b -> c they all accept that evaluation without knowing how they came to that conclusion Proposal example -> group dynamic led to accept the idea of a proposal Influence -> information processing in groups of people is highly susceptible to social influence (we want to fit in.. herarchies..) Organisational justice -> treating everyone equally in a multicultural organisation Workload, communication  Chapter 4 - Slow thinking - reasoning and persuasion System 2 Relevance: persuading power, like decision to buy something (advertising and marketing) When in business do we need persuading powers? The art of persuasion is one of the most crucial business skills and once again that is profoundly culture-based There are different types of reasoning Logical reasoning (methodical approach to arrive at a conclusion) -> deductive thinking starts with an assumption of a general rule and from there goes to a specific conclusion (moves from general to specific) premise -> example -> conclusion -> inductive thinking begins with an observation and goes from there to a generalised conclusion, it moves from a specific example to the underlying rule by accumulating more evidence, observation -> observed pattern -> conclusion -> abductive thinking also draws conclusions from specific events or evidence, however, these are based on guesswork, it is assumed the most probable conclusion is the valid one (like in court most likely explanation) Critical thinking (rational thoughts and connections, reflective thoughts processes) Counterfactual thinking (what if we didn’t do that?) Most of us can use both principle-first and application-first reasoning However most of us have an application first preference The educational tradition in our culture influences the one we like to use more Different approaches in the educational system The Asian approach Specific vs holistic -> Asians are more holistic (they look at the bigger picture) Differences between thinking in cultures -> philosophy and education systems Epistemology concerned about the idea of knowledge - rationality and beliefs Aristotle first documented inductive/deductive reasoning -> he said epistemology is based on things that exists or happen in the world Plato said that epistemology there are innate ideas/universal truth knowledge is derived from a priori knowledge Descartes believed that ideas can be self-evident because of their nature Rationalism Chapter 5 - Leadership Leadership - motivate people towards a goal Expectations vary because of multiple cultures Leadership theory - 4 Stages Early 1900s: trait theories, from being focused on personality it shifted to behavioural theories to contingency theories (Fiedler´s model - situational control) (Path-goal theory) (Leadership substitutes theory) -> implicit theories transformational leadership theory GLOBE Study -> some cultures like some of these more than others -> charismatic, team- oriented, participative, humane oriented, autonomous, self-protective Leadership isn’t just about how people lead but also how people follow and expect to be led. Power distance (Geert Hofstede) „The extent to which the less powerful members of organisations accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.“ Can you skip layers in your company or do you have to go through the hierarchical chain? (Level-hopping) How do you know who’s boss? Office, appearance, cars ?? To know what power distance messages to send, you need to know what behaviours and symbols signify. (Reliability and expertise vs wearing a Rolex) Leading Scale to Meyer „level-hopping“ -> not acceptable to skip layers Historical Factors in Leadership Traditions Should your boss always have an answer for you? Asked in eurpean countries? 55% of Italians said yes, Swedish managers said they would like the staff to figure it out on their own (reposinsibility and achievement of the individual is important) Europe is really diverse when it comes to the role of a manager 1. the Roman Empire: heavily centralised structures, needed to manage the big empire, big boundaries, immediately visible to people the social class of people through clothes for example 2. The Vikings: highly egalitarian, high focus on democracy 3. Protestants vs Catholic Churches: Protestants are more egalitarian (they believe the gap between god and humans is smaller), Catholics have Pope, hierarchy, strict rules, no women Asia, Saudi Arabia are highly hierarchical Non-Western theories of leadership: Performance-Maintenance Theory (performance:task-oriented, maintenance:relationship- oriented) Leadership in the Arab world: leadership influences by Islamic and tribal traditions, rigid structures introduced during Ottoman Empire, so we have sense of stability and care on one hand but also rigid structures on the other hand), sheikocracy: but combination of authoritarian and patriarchical approach, personal connection but also hierarchical authority since their is conformity to rules and regulations but also the power of those establishing them Prophetic-caliphate model of leadership (1990s): duality of relationships in leaderships, two leadership styles that can fill the vacuum created by lack of institutions, strong dispositions for prophetic leader to guide people is needed for unity and voluntary submission to his authority by his followers -> close to transformational leader idea, ordinary leader (without aura) will lead to conflicts and will need more authoritarianism to gain same results Confuciunism (Asian societies): Confucius wanted societal order and harmony and he believed this can be achieved by hierarchy and if people don’t apply to that social harmony is threatened -> Hierarchy (observing ranks) leads to harmony Paternalism: ´Father knows best`-> still relevant theory today, hierarchical relationship, many Asians business people use paternalistic leadership: boss (like father) provides direction, protection and care towards subordinate in exchange for loyalty, especially common within cultures with large power distance Confucian relationships work both ways (mutual obligations) ´With great power comes great responsibility` Chapter 6 - decisions and disagreements Managers have to make many decisions, humans make many of them automatically (with fast thinking or quick slow thinking), however with new type of decision (high stakes decisions) we consider many alternatives and have to choose one Lottery example -> how do you decide where to go with your friends? (Different strategies -> Should you decide because it´s your money or do you want them to vote) Managerial-Decision-Making -> 2 kind of approaches of what managers should do and what they actually do 1. Prerscriptive models -> „when making a decision, you should make it like this or like that..“ 2. Descriptive models -> what actually happens in the real world Rational decision-making (type 2 cognition) -> considering the alternatives and choosing the best one according to the circumstances -> goal : optimal choice between specific / clearly defined options. Steps: problem definition Identify criteria -> cultural variation Weight criteria -> cultural variation Generate alternatives -> cultural variation Evaluate alternatives -> cultural variation Select optimal solution BUT in reality it doesn’t work like that because we are limited by circumstances: -> incomplete information, own preferences, limited time/resources, bias What we do in reality: Satisficing (satisfy and suffice) -> we leave optimal solution(/s) for the ones that are acceptable because we can actually do them -> for us to be able to operate -> „we aim to satisfice rather than optimise“ Cultural constrains on rationality -> we have varying definitions of rationality, importance of appearing rational, differing considerations, varying degrees of analysis, different herustics (strategies to simplify a decision) Example: Staff selection -> hiring decision has been researched -> how are people hired? -> we have significant pattern of similarities and differences -> there are more difference than similarities -> there are also cultural variations for requirements for job in the job description for example -> intrapersonal skills and soft skills in hierarchical culture not so immortal There are ethical dilemmas in decision-making -> different cultures means different values and different norms -> bribing/discrimination against women is not okay in some cultures but in others it is Consequential models -> focus on consequences of the decisions (like Kant) Rule-based models -> decision should follow international guidelines Cultural relativism -> something isn’t universally right, it is maybe in the environment where it happens (but here we say that we shouldn’t impose universal rules, which can be bad, but still easy way out) hypernorms -> regardless of what culture says, it can’t be ever right/wrong Germans are relatively hierarchical, Americans should be more egalitarian Different styles of decision-making: Swedish managers tend to be highly egalitarian and believe in consensual decision making (consensus=agreement, we talk about decision and everybody agrees) Most hierarchical cultures are also top-down decision-making cultures In the US business culture, decision-making is more about the individual -> one person making a decision it would be quicker (value is placed on quickness, usually the boss decides on behalf of the group, everyone else follows along) -> BUT „consensus leads to mediocrity - it aims to satisfy everyone and ends up satisfying no one“, consensus is better because „United we stand, divided we fall“ or „play for the name on the front and people will remember the name on your back“ (football example)  germany breaks the mood in a different way -> people spend more time on group agreement and group feedback, but leading in general is hierarchical (Aufsichtsrat, Vorstand, Gremien, …) -> potential advantages: better decisions (group has thought about it)? Better implementation (everyone is on board)? Better group relationship (better cohesion)? How final and binding are decisions? Can you go back on decisions? if so, how often? Americans are quick at making decisions, Germans commit after consensus Should you be able to change decisions? How will people react? Where does this difference come from? Let’s look at history American pioneer valued speed and individualism, mistakes were inevitable and ultimately insignificant, but it is quick. German culture has community at the heart of it, power is distributed often in groups of senior managers, project timelines can look dramatically different: Big D Small d decision Top-down culture Both systems work, but problems may occur when they collide, when expectations meet and don’t match Movements and difference on scale: What about Japan? what is the ringi system? It’s a management technique that´s hierarchical and consensual at the same time Ringi: Bottom people use personalised stamps and it goes up and the ceo is the last persons to give the input, the ceo makes an executive (top-down decision) based on what the „ringi- sho“ contains -> based on concept of „nemawashi“ - preparing the roots of a tree for transplantation-> you have to prepare roots / lay foundation first Problems may arise when we’re not aware of these differences and respond emotionally. Practice awareness and adaptability! in business meeting can become uncomfortable and unsettling How do people voice disagreement? Do they confront each other about decisions? When someone disagrees with your idea, are they disapproving of you or your idea? How do you feel when a (heated) debate breaks out at a dinner party? When you give a presentation and someone challenges it, do you feel personally attacked? Can a presentation that is heavily challenged still be successful? Do you ´lose face` when someone questions your idea? (Shame) -> varies in society Is preserving group harmony more important than reaching excellence through questioning? (Is confrontation more suppressed, or reaching excellence by discussing) How common are strikes in your culture? -> most people associate France but Germany is also getting there with train strikes ->x on regular basis you live in an environment where open disagreement is okay Confucianism -> societal harmony by saving face for team members of society is important „If everybody knows their part and plays them, everything is fine“ French school example -> students are taught to disagree openly Conflict and dissonance bring hidden contradictions to light and stimulate creativity and fresh thinking Open confrontation leads to excellence, fosters creativity and helps to eliminate risks (valid concerns should be shown) Germany -> discuss both sides of an issue Main question: can you separate attacking someone’s idea/opinion from attacking the persons? -> in more confrontational cultures it is okay , they have beer together even if they fight before that -> in less confrontational not In confrontational cultures, the separation (personal vs professional) is natural. In societies that avoid confrontation it’s almost impossible to separate these „attacks“ Erin Meyer scale: Trust and business relationships Let's talk about business relationships and how they work. When we talk about business relationships, we're really talking about trust and how it guides our business decisions and collaborations. Why people trust somebody or what they trust somebody with varies widely across cultures. So what is trust? When we look at neuroscientific research, it gives us some insight into how trust works in the brain. We know that for us as human beings, social acceptance is a fundamental driver. It's something we inherently strive for at all times because when we feel appreciated or accepted by our peers, the brain releases oxytocin. This hormone creates bonds between people (the love hormone). It makes it possible for us to trust others and to openly move toward others who are different from ourselves and be interested in learning more about them. We rely on this as humans all the time, and it's also important in the brain's ability to shift from our own self-interest to seeing other people's interests as important. It boosts group-serving behavior when it's released in the brain. We should never underestimate how important it is for us to have that social acceptance and social cohesion, even in business. If we think further about the role that this type of trust, or the different types of trust, play in business relationships, that's where culture comes in. We can see some differences: for example, in the way people prefer to build business relationships, in which settings, through which activities, and just generally how or whether to do something like this at all—over drinks or food, whether they see that as necessary or not, or if it's something people build through professional collaboration, trusting people's competence and performance. We can also see a variety of environments when it comes to something like icebreaker exercises, for example, and the importance of forming team-building or cohesive groups in which to collaborate. How important is that in your culture? -> the distance or the difference between people's work relationships and personal friendships. Think about your cultural background. You might have a feeling about the preference where you grew up or where you first started working. Is it something that people strive to keep separate because it's a question of professionalism, or is it something that mixes quite naturally and intermingles without a conscious effort to keep the two separate? This relates to the context of cultural dimensions, such as specific or diffuse societies. When we talk about trust in business relationships, is it based only on your professional performance, skills, and competence, or does there also need to be an emotional connection or a type of friendship? Is it necessary to have a personal relationship with a colleague, supplier, or collaborator beyond the professional workplace? These are interesting questions in that context, and they are answered in different ways depending on where you are. What we can say universally is that trust is a critical element of business anywhere. Every country and every society in the world—whether your home is a small village in the Malaysian mountains or a glass-walled penthouse in a London skyscraper—you can't be successful if your customers, colleagues, partners, and suppliers don't trust you. However, the means by which you build that trust among business associates can differ dramatically from one culture to another. Business people everywhere recognize the importance of trust in business relationships, but they make very different and often unconscious choices or assumptions about how that trust is created. reflection exercise -> think of five people you trust off the top of your head. Name five people you would trust. If you think about it a little more and consider why you have that trust for them, or more specifically what you would trust them with, you might find that the type of trust you feel for one person is different from the type of trust you feel for another person. Also, the question of what or who you would trust them with plays a role. Would you trust them to do your job, take your intercultural management exam, watch your dog, take care of your children, house-sit, fly a plane you're on, or drive a car you're in? These are different types of trust. Cognitively, we distinguish between two different types of trust, which we call cognitive and affective. The differences are more complex and differentiated than that, but this simple distinction is something we can work with in our context. Cognitive trust is more analytical, and we can give a reason for it. It's measurable and tangible. We can name the person we trust and why. For example, "I trust this pilot to fly this plane because he works for Lufthansa, probably has tens of thousands of flying hours on this particular model of plane, and they let him do this and pay him for it." This trust is based on knowledge, is measurable, and tangible. Affective trust, on the other hand, isn't as tangible. It's based more on values, is not really measurable, and comes from the heart. It's based on intuition; we don't know why it's there, but it is. Therefore, it's more intangible and based more on ancient wisdom than knowledge. -> Assuming those are roughly the two types of trust we can have for people, we can then ask the question, which one do we need in a business setting? Cognitive trust is based on the confidence you feel in another person's accomplishments, skills, reliability, professionalism, and competence. Cognitive trust comes from the head. You know about it, you experience it, and then it forms into a kind of faith in another person. We build that through interactions. We work together; you do your work well, demonstrating that you are reliable, pleasant to work with, friendly, consistent, intelligent, transparent—all the things we want in a collaborator. As a result, I trust you. That's cognitive trust. Affective trust, on the other hand, comes from feelings of closeness, empathy, friendship, and shared experiences. You might say, "We laugh together, we relax together, I feel comfortable around you, we get each other." That grows also through interaction, but not necessarily professional interaction alone. We know that friendships and personal relationships are mostly built on affective trust. When you pick a romantic partner, for example, there is some cognitive trust as well. If you know someone has been arrested or imprisoned for murdering their previous partner, that's knowledge and will most definitely influence your decision to build a relationship with that person. -> But it won't work without affective trust, which happens throughout the world. Our friendships and personal relationships are built on affective trust everywhere. If you try to work out why you trust your mother or your spouse, the explanation would be based on feelings. You would refer to how you feel about them, which is how we know it's affective trust. -> In business, it's a bit more complicated. We can't just say one type of trust is for friendships and personal relationships, and the other, cognitive trust, is for business, because it doesn't quite work out that way. Business is also personal, making it more complicated. Research shows there are differences between, for example, American and Chinese respondents. The study found that: Americans in business draw a sharp dividing line between cognitive and affective trust because the United States has a long tradition of separating the practical and the emotional. In Germany, the home of our university, it's similar. Mixing the two is perceived as unprofessional and could risk conflicts of interest. Chinese managers, on the other hand, connect the two forms of trust in their business conduct, with a stronger interplay between affective and cognitive trust in their business relationships. Unlike Americans, Chinese managers are likely to develop personal ties and affective bonds alongside business, financial, or legal ties. For a Chinese manager working with an American manager, the American preference to separate the two could indicate a lack of sincerity, loyalty, and transparency, leading to potential misunderstandings and conflict. In the video about how business relationships work, we saw that in some cultures, personal trust guides the way two parties conduct business. In contrast, others make a concerted effort to ensure that personal relationships don't cloud their business interactions. In fact, they often deliberately restrict effective closeness with people they depend on, for example, for economic resources, budgeting, financing, and other professional arenas. For instance, in countries like the United States or Switzerland, business is business. However, in countries like China or Brazil, which are also important global players, business is personal. Meyer expressed this in the Trusting Scale, differentiating task-based cultures from relationship-based cultures. The more task-based end the culture, the more people tend to separate affective and cognitive trust. Conversely, more relationship-based the culture, the harder it is to operate cognitive and affective trust in business and the two intermingle. According to her research, we see, for example, that the United States is positioned far to the left, while all the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) fall quite far to the right. This shift in the center of gravity in the global business world has fundamentally changed over the past decades. Previously, managers working in global business felt pulled toward working in an American style because the United States dominated most world markets, and building trust in a task-based fashion was key to international success. However, in today's business environment, where the BRIC countries are rising and expanding their reach and influence, and countries in the southern hemisphere such as Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are gaining weight, all those countries lie significantly towards the relationship-based end of the scale. -> If you’re a manager aiming for success at an international level, your work often brings you together with people from these environments. You'll have to learn how to build relationships based on trust with your clients and colleagues to be successful. While the American business culture is often based on practical cognitive trust, activities like client breakfasts, golf outings, and team-building exercises might suggest that Americans are also relationship-based. However, the key difference is in the speed, practicality, and ease with which these relationships are built and then dropped. Once built, these relationships are often quickly ended once the collaboration is over. In task-based cultures like the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Switzerland, relationships are defined by functionality and practicality. You move in and out of relationships as needed to suit your best interests. However, in relationship-based environments, relationships are built much more slowly and organically, founded not only on professional credibility. These relationships are not dropped once the practical need ends but are sustained over time. The differences in how cultures handle relationships extend to professional scenarios, such as when a colleague is fired. In task-based cultures, the professional relationship ends unless there is a personal friendship. In relationship-based cultures, the relationship may continue, even if the colleague is no longer part of the company. Similarly, when someone leaves the country or is fired, the personal relationships they have built may impact the team and client dynamics significantly. In some cultures, firing a sales manager might mean losing his team and his clients as well. Understanding these cultural differences in relationship-building is crucial for international business success. Relationship-based approaches can be more beneficial in multicultural settings, as they help build trust and facilitate smoother collaborations. Investing time in relationship-building, whether through face-to-face meetings, shared activities, or choosing more personal communication methods, can significantly impact the success of international business endeavors. Models of personal interaction: The peach and coconut models for interactions 1. `peach cultures` (USA, Japan, Brazilian): peaches are soft to the outside world and they have a hard pit at their center, in these cultures friendliness is not equal friendship 2. `coconut cultures` (Germany, Russia, France, Scandinavia): they are more reserved with people they don’t know well, once you break the shell, people become warmer and friendlier. Relationships take longer to build but they are more durable. In short, social cues vary among cultures - how do you know what a real friendship is developing? TB and RB cultures may be friendly with strangers, but this doesn’t mean they’re interested in building a relationship. Strategies for building trust across cultural divides: As a rule of thumb, it pays off to use a relationship-based approach when working with people from around the world - once an effective relationship is established, the forgiveness for any cultural missteps comes a lot easier. But knowing exactly hot to build affective trust across cultures may not always be so obvious. Look for things you have in common with other people and build common interest. If you can’t meet them face to face, be creative. Drinking together can be helpful, eating together where you show another side of yourself, (joining the crowd is better in a RB culture, you show you have nothing to hide) -> don’t be afraid to relax and show your non-professional self when working with RB cultures, it may be even expected and help your case. On the other hand task-based people often don’t see why they should risk making a fool of themselves in front of people they need to impress. People from TB cultures often try to keep a 'professional persona' and struggle to find time to build professional relationships. "Why should I spend time on building a relationship when I have a contract?" Reasons: There is practical benefit -> In many cultures, the relationship is the contract. It acts as a safety net when legal systems are not reliable. -> Never underestimate the importance of eating together... get to know people on a personal level, don’t mistake a long lunch for a waste of time… and in the case of Japan, drinking together -> also important: your choice of communication medium: with TB people, choose the medium that’s more efficient (like E-mail), with RB people, make the extra effort to pick up the phone or take the trip and schedule time for meeting and going out -> How much time should you spend on small talk -> In some cultures, you might have to make a pure social call before. When in doubt, follow the other person´s lead, same goes for e-mails - mimic the other person’s style, in a first e-mail, err on the side of being more social, don’t underestimate the power of „just saying hello“ Trust is like insurance - it's an investment you need to make up front, before the need arises. Time and technology -> approaches to time and where they come from when you think about your own relationship with time, what comes to mind? How often do you have to rush because you're late? How often do you have to run to make it to a lecture on time or catch a train or bus? What does being late mean to you? When does being late start for you? Is it after 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes, or not at all? How long do you consider a train to still be on time before you get annoyed because it's late? These are important questions. In a more professional setting, for example, when you're giving a presentation at a meeting and the audience is engaged, is it okay to extend your time slot, or would you cut off the presentation at the exact scheduled time? Your answers will relate to the type of time culture you were brought up in. One of the first people to distinguish different time cultures was Edward T. Hall, who also talked about high and low context communicators and came up with the idea of proxemics. He distinguished two different approaches to time found in cultures: monochronic and polychronic. In a monochronic time culture, time is a tangible, concrete entity. You can save it, spend it, waste it, or lose it. Time can fly, be killed, etc. It's a classification system like a grid that organizes life. Without it, most things would break down; nobody would know when to be anywhere. In a polychronic time culture, time is not a grid but a fluid. It's flexible. Appointments are taken less seriously. People might say, "I will see you before one hour or after two days," and exact times for meetings can be approximations. Meyer mentions in her book an example where someone lived in an African culture where "I am coming now" didn't mean soon, but "I am coming now now" did. Some cultures use event time, relating activities to events like "when the cows come home" or "before lunch," not the abstract clock. -> Early industrialized nations (Germany) often have linear time cultures. In contrast, if you work on a farm in Nigeria, where work is done by people with the elements, the clock and calendar might not be as important. Relationship-based cultures often prioritize relationships over the clock, making them flexible time cultures. Meyer has a scheduling scale: linear time and flexible time, related to Hall's monochronic and polychronic time. -> Linear time sees time as a line, with the past behind and the future ahead. Projects are sequences of steps, one thing at a time, with a focus on deadlines and punctuality. Good organization and reaching goals matter more than flexibility. In flexible time, tasks are approached fluidly, adapting to opportunities and circumstances. Many things can be done at once, with interruptions being less problematic. Adaptability and flexibility are valued over strict organization. Germany and Switzerland are very linear time cultures. -> Spain, Italy, and France are more flexible, and traditional agricultural societies like Nigeria and Kenya are highly flexible. In everyday life, in linear time cultures, people form queues, have agendas for meetings, and stick to schedules. In flexible time cultures, there might not be queues, and meetings can be more fluid, with new priorities emerging and conversations happening simultaneously. For example, in a linear time culture, a meeting might strictly follow an agenda, and side conversations would be inappropriate. In a flexible time culture, an agenda might only include the start time and overall topic, with the meeting evolving based on current priorities and interruptions being accepted. If you plan an event months in advance and invite someone from a flexible time culture, they might find it strange to specify details far ahead. Flexible time planners, like those in Nigeria who rely on the moon for holidays, can't plan that far in advance. -> As a global manager, understanding different time cultures is crucial. For a dinner party at 7:00 p.m., should you arrive at 6:55 or later? To adapt to different ways of scheduling, style- switching is key...but it might take a lot of trial and error to get it right. Adapt to the local time culture through experience. Getting it wrong is usually an organizational issue, not a relationship-damaging mistake. Keep in mind that each culture has its own peculiarities and apparent contradictions. -> Chinese scheduling can seem contradictory: punctuality is important, but flexibility and immediate planning are valued. Plans made in advance are considered flexible. Embrace this flexibility, even if it feels uncomfortable at first. -> When managing a multicultural team, set clear expectations at the beginning of collaboration. For example, if a meeting is at three, it means three. If someone comes late or leaves early, they might have to contribute to a fund as a lighthearted penalty.