CULTURAL DIMENSIONS

1. I strive to communicate simply, clearly, and explicitly. I avoid reading (and speaking)
between the lines. Agree
2. The most effective presenters spell out what they’re going to tell you, then tell you,
and then summarize what they’ve told you, to ensure that the communication is crystal
clear. Strongly Agree
3. After a meeting or a phone call, it is important to recap in writing exactly what was
said, to prevent misunderstanding or confusion. Strongly Agree
4. If I’ve done poor work, I prefer to be told bluntly rather than gently or diplomatically.
Strongly Disagree
5. I prefer to give negative feedback immediately and all at once rather than little by little,
building up the picture over time. Neutral
6. When I give negative feedback, I pay more attention to how the person receiving the
message feels than to how clearly I expressed my criticism. Neutral
7. A good presenter exerts influence by getting right to the point with concrete
examples, conclusions, tools, and next steps. Strongly Agree
8. For business decisions made by a group, it is vital to leave adequate time to debate the
concepts after all the evidence is presented. Strongly Agree
9. A good presenter influences her audience by explaining and validating the underlying
concept before sharing examples or drawing conclusions. Strongly Agree
10. If I don’t agree with the boss, I say so openly, even in front of others. Neutral
11. In meetings with colleagues, clients, or suppliers, I don’t pay much attention to the
hierarchical positions of the attendees. Strongly disagree
12. If I have ideas to share with someone several levels above or below me, I speak to that
person directly rather than communicating through my immediate boss or immediate
subordinate. Disagree
13. Even if it takes a long time, it is better to involve everyone in decision making, as that
ultimately yields better decisions and more reliable buy-in. Strongly Agree
14. Consensus-building ultimately leads to mediocre decisions and wastes time. Disagree
15. If the boss makes a unilateral decision I disagree with, I still comply with the decision.
Neutral
16. It is better not to get too emotionally close to colleagues, suppliers, and clients. Neutral
17. I often invest time in sharing coffee, meals, or drinks with colleagues, suppliers, and
clients—without discussing work much, just getting to know one another. Strongly
Agree
18. If I have a meeting at 9:00 a.m., that’s when I will arrive, not 5, 10, or 15 minutes later.
Disagree
19. I can’t really trust a colleague, supplier, or client until I spend time getting to know her
personally. Disagree
20. Frequently expressing open disagreement with other team members is likely to
positively affect a team’s chances of success. Neutral
21. When I disagree strongly with a point made by a colleague during a presentation, I
express that disagreement. Neutral
22. Open debate, where team members challenge one another’s ideas and opinions, is
likely to engender bad feelings and ruin relationships. Neutral
23. Professionalism has more to do with being organized and structured than being
flexible and reactive. Strongly Disagree
24. A meeting agenda should be followed closely; it’s not a broad guideline that should
change depending on where the group wants to take the discussion. Neutral
25. What’s your nationality?
Algeria

You selected Colombia as your nationality. Observe where you fall on each of the eight scales:

Communicating. This scale measures the degree to which a culture prefers low- or high-context communication, a
metric developed by anthropologist Edward Hall. In low-context cultures (such as the U.S., Germany, and
the Netherlands), good communication is precise, simple, and explicit. Messages are expressed and
understood at face value. Repetition and written confirmation are appreciated, for clarity’s sake. In high-
context cultures (such as China, India, and France), communication is sophisticated, nuanced, and layered.
Reading between the lines is expected. Less is put in writing, and more is left to interpretation.

Evaluating. Often confused with the Communicating scale, Evaluating measures something distinct: the relative
preference for direct versus indirect criticism. The French, for example, are high-context communicators
relative to Americans yet are much more direct with negative feedback. Spaniards and Mexicans are
equally high-context communicators, but the Spanish are much more direct than Mexicans when it comes
to giving negative feedback.

Persuading. This scale measures preference for principles-first versus applications-first arguments (sometimes
described as deductive versus inductive reasoning). People from Germanic and southern European cultures
usually find it more persuasive to lay out generally accepted principles before presenting an opinion or
making a statement; American and British managers typically lead with opinions or factual observations,
adding concepts later to explain as necessary.

Leading. This scale gauges the degree of respect and deference shown to authority figures, on a spectrum between
the egalitarian and the hierarchical. The former camp includes Scandinavia and Israel, whereas China,
Russia, Nigeria, and Japan are more hierarchical. The metric builds on the concept of power distance, first
researched by Geert Hofstede, who conducted 100,000 management surveys at IBM in the 1970s, and later
researched by Robert House and Mansour Javidan in their GLOBE Study of 62 Societies.
Deciding. We often assume that the most egalitarian cultures in the world are also the most consensual, and that the
most hierarchical ones are those where the boss makes top-down decisions. That’s not always the case.
The Japanese are strongly hierarchical but have one of the most consensual cultures in the world. Germans
are more hierarchical than Americans but also more likely to make decisions through group consensus. This
scale explores differences between building group agreement and relying on one person (usually the boss)
to make decisions.

Trusting. This scale balances task-based trust (from the head) with relationship-based trust (from the heart). In a
task-based culture, such as the United States, the UK, or Germany, trust is built through work: We
collaborate well, we like each other’s work, and we are fond of each other—so I trust you. In a relationship-
based society, such as Brazil, China, or India, trust is built by weaving personal, affective connections: We
have laughed together, have shared time relaxing together, and have come to know each other at a deep,
personal level—so I trust you. Many scholars, such as Roy Chua and Michael Morris, have researched this
topic.

Disagreeing. Everyone knows that a little confrontation is healthy, right? The recent U.S. business literature certainly
confirms that viewpoint, but different cultures have varying ideas about how productive it is. People in
Indonesia, Japan, and Thailand view the public airing of disagreement very dimly, whereas those in
Germany, France, and the Netherlands are quite comfortable with it. This scale measures how you view
confrontation—whether you feel it is likely to improve group dynamics or to harm relationships within a
team.

Scheduling. All businesses follow timetables, but in India, Brazil, and Italy, people treat a schedule as a suggestion. In
Switzerland, Germany, and the U.S., people typically stick to the plan. This scale measures whether you
view time as linear or flexible, depending on how much value you place on structure or adaptability. It is
based on the monochronic/polychronic distinction formalized by Edward Hall.