A Mapping Framework to interpret Cultural Behaviours
- Arpit Shah
- Aug 20, 2022
- 14 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
BACKGROUND
It was in 2011, during my time as a Business Analyst at an FMCG organization, that I formally began using Microsoft Excel. My boss was highly proficient in it and never missed an opportunity to remind me of the importance of organizing data neatly before attempting any analysis. Once I became familiar with the scope and utility of this widely used spreadsheet tool, I grew genuinely fond of it and enjoyed working on it.
Excel's cell layout felt like a natural framework for organizing data into digestible chunks of information, and before long, I began viewing real-world objects through a similar lens. A multi-storeyed building, for instance, appeared to me as a neat arrangement of “cells” made up of windows and balconies, all aligned symmetrically in rows and columns 😊.
This habit—of using frameworks to turn complexity into meaning—has served me remarkably well over the years. Many positive personal and professional experiences can be traced back to the development of this trait. In fact, my affinity for Supply Chain and Mapping (which eventually led to Mapmyops.com likely stems from it.
HYPERLINKS TO SECTIONS
Wouldn’t it be great if there was a framework to understand something as abstract and complex as Culture and Human Behaviour?
After all, these are central to our existence. They influence how we interpret everyday situations—whether we participate in them directly or observe them from afar. And although each human being is unique, groups of culturally connected people do tend to share behavioural patterns.
It is important to note that while behaviour forms a significant portion of culture, culture also encompasses ideas, norms, habits, attitudes, beliefs, customs, and laws.
What culture means in the Indian context is beautifully distilled in a small silver booklet that I possess (Figure 3). Nani Palkhivala defines Indian Culture and Dharma as a combination of three virtues: Self-discipline, Self-restraint, and Self-development. As profound as this is, it is noteworthy that the explanation draws on individual traits to describe a collective phenomenon. It is almost as though culture binds millions into a single living organism.
When outsiders encounter India, they find it to be diverse, spiritual, advanced, and multi-faceted. Having been exposed to other cultures myself, I believe India’s uniqueness stems largely from its geography.
The geography of Bhāratavarṣa - the ancient name of the Indian subcontinent - is perhaps, the single-most important contributor to the growth of civilization and the development of rich heritage in this landmass. Much of it is interspersed with flowing water bodies, carriers of nutrients, which make the soil arable and the vegetation lush - leading humans to congregate and settle around it (the Chinese, Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations emerged around the Yangtze, Nile and Tigris-Euphrates rivers respectively). The ancient land of Bhāratavarṣa was blessed with flowing rivers, fertile soil, and abundant vegetation—conditions that encouraged early humans to settle, cultivate crops, and eventually build sophisticated societies, akin to the Chinese, Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations which emerged around the Yangtze, Nile and Tigris-Euphrates rivers respectively. The region’s subtropical climate shielded inhabitants from extremes that rendered many other parts of the world inhospitable. Meanwhile, natural barriers—the Himalayas, the Indian Ocean, the Thar Desert—protected the subcontinent from climatic fury and limited invasions. With these advantages, India became a fertile Petri dish for civilization to flourish. Agriculture, urban planning, education systems, Sanskrit language, and Sanskriti (culture) developed rapidly. Residents even forged international trade routes across mountains and seas, turning the subcontinent into a centre of knowledge and cultural exchange. Soon enough, the residents were even able create channels of international trade bypassing the natural barriers, be it the Grand Trunk Road, spectacular Mountain-passes or prominent Maritime routes. No wonder, this land became a beacon of cultural broadcast which attracted traders, students and invaders alike. What unfolded over the last millennium, however, severely eroded that prosperity and damaged the cultural ecosystem—sometimes irreversibly. External powers exploited internal divides, dismantled cultural foundations, and altered local customs, languages, traditions, and even food. Meanwhile, global progress—from colonialism and the Renaissance to industrialization, computing, and modern capitalism—reshaped the world order, leaving India on the back foot. Today, geography is losing influence as a cultural catalyst. Humans can inhabit hostile environments, grow crops independent of soil and climate, work remotely, and mingle with different cultures either in person or from the comforts of screens at a much rapid pace than before.
What I am curious and just as well concerned about is how will culture evolve next?
Would the human race find a way to limit its greed, utilize resources wisely, and live harmoniously? Or are we hurtling towards a dystopian future devoid of vision and charm, and at the mercy of technology and its promise of near-unlimited consumption and pleasure?
Frankly, the latter does not seem all that implausible to me given how we are setting ourselves up today. Understanding our cultural behaviours and the similarities and differences that bind us better would help us to arrive at a consensus as to how to progress our time on this planet in a sustainable manner.
India, I believe, still has a major role to play in shaping the emerging world order—not necessarily as a protagonist, but as a guide.
A lot of people, especially the youth, already feel conflicted about the stance they should adopt -
Should we chase Western-style capitalist development?
Should we reconnect with our cultural roots (despite much being lost)?
Or should we embrace the current wave of aggressive, rhetoric-driven nationalism?
Whether the optimal path lies in one of these or in a thoughtful blend of all three remains to be seen.
Grappling with these thoughts and staying true to my profession, I often find myself wondering:
Can Mapping help us navigate this dilemma?
If Mapping, is an excellent means to...
structure thinking approach
organize and understand reality
embark on an exploration, with the lure of a magical destination
...then it could very help humans bridge their divides and journey together towards a bright future.
It was during such reflections that I encountered the audiobook The Culture Map – Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. It provides a compelling framework for understanding cultural behaviour in cross-cultural settings (a valuable reference for point 2 above)—something that can help us analyse our present “as-is” state before designing an ideal “to-be.”
INTRODUCING - THE CULTURE MAP
Published in 2014, The Culture Map book is authored by Erin Meyer, a Professor of Management Practice at INSEAD. The book captures her research on behavioural tendencies and managerial differences across countries.
At the heart of the book is the 8-Dimensions of Culture Framework, where each dimension presents a behavioural spectrum and positions various nationalities relative to one another.
Erin uses numerous real-life stories to demonstrate how cultural nuances influence workplace communication, leadership, persuasion, and trust. Anyone who has worked across cultures is likely to find themselves nodding in recognition—this happened to me, or had I known this, I would’ve handled it differently.
As can be observed, each of these dimensions is particularly relevant in an organizational context and reflects contrasting behavioural tendencies at either end of the scale. For example, the Leading dimension (Figure 5) ranges from an egalitarian style of corporate leadership to a hierarchical one.
Erin maps the behavioural tendencies of different nationalities relative to one another along this spectrum. Australians, for instance, generally advocate equal rights for all employees irrespective of designation (a highly egalitarian society), whereas Indians tend to expect preferential rights as they move up the corporate ladder (a clear affinity for hierarchy). The British fall somewhere in between—neither as egalitarian as the Australians nor as hierarchical as the Indians—and are therefore placed at the centre of the scale.
Before I begin elaborating on each of the eight cultural dimensions, do note the following:
The visual cards compare the contrasting tendencies at either end of each behavioural spectrum.
You may safely assume that the exact opposite of a given statement applies to the contrasting tendency, even if not stated explicitly.
Some examples are paraphrased directly from the audiobook, while others reflect my personal experiences and interpretation of the subject matter.
Erin’s research on the Communicating dimension (Figure 7) shows how countries fare relative to one another on a scale ranging from Low-context to High-context communication styles.
You may assume that nationalities clustered closely together on a spectrum are more likely to work smoothly due to similar cultural tendencies, while those farther apart may face communication challenges. While this is often true, it is not always straightforward.
For instance, in the Communicating dimension, the greatest potential for misunderstanding actually occurs between nationalities clustered on the High-context side—those who communicate indirectly, often relying on subtle cues or non-verbal signals.
Consider a conversation between a Chinese and a Japanese colleague. If the Chinese employee conveys a subtle message that the Japanese colleague interprets differently—guided by his own cultural norms—the response may in turn be misread by the Chinese 😊. It resembles an encryption–decryption loop in electronic communication, except that human interpretation is far less predictable! In fact, this dynamic may well contribute to the long-standing rivalry between these two proud nations.
Erin emphasizes the importance of observing relative positioning. For example, although the US and Germany both sit towards the Low-context end of the Communicating scale, Americans may still miss nuances that Germans consider explicit, simply because American communication is even more direct.
While Erin charts nationalities on the Evaluating spectrum just as she does for Communicating (Figure 7), additional insights emerge when the two dimensions are viewed together (Figure 9).
Notably, some nationalities—such as the US and Canada—communicate very directly (Low-context) yet provide negative feedback in an indirect, softened manner. The opposite also holds true. Israel and France, for example, may communicate implicitly in everyday conversation but offer criticism in a blunt, direct manner.
In a cross-cultural workplace, these mismatches can create friction. Superiors from a direct-evaluating culture may unintentionally demoralize subordinates from an indirect-evaluating culture, who may perceive such criticism as cold or harsh. Conversely, if a supervisor offers positive remarks first to cushion the subsequent negative feedback, subordinates from more direct cultures may find the approach insincere or evasive.
According to Erin—based on her consulting work and research—a balanced approach that leans slightly towards indirect evaluation tends to work best in multicultural environments.
Persuading is a crucial behavioural trait in a workplace. It is not limited to Sales; it is integral to influencing multiple stakeholders and navigating the various forms of “selling” that occur in corporate environments—whether selling products, services, ideas, strategies, or even one’s own expertise. Career progression, project buy-ins, and budget approvals often hinge on how effectively an individual or team can persuade decision-makers.
Cultures differ markedly in their Persuading styles. Some rely on a Principles-first approach, others prefer an Applications-first approach, and some fall in between, adopting Holistic Thinking (which Erin places at the midpoint of the spectrum).
As an Indian-origin student exploring higher education abroad, I found myself drawn to Global Supply Chain Management because it involves understanding systems and interdependencies rather than isolated nodes. Listening to Erin’s explanation of Holistic Thinking—and its prevalence across Asian cultures—made me introspect. I realized that my cultural background may have subtly shaped my academic preferences.
Indians, in general, tend to analyse the pros and cons carefully, view the broader picture, and then build a cohesive case—a style characteristic of holistic thinkers. This contrasts with Western preferences for first acting and then refining based on experience (Applications-first), or the Middle Eastern tendency to interpret decisions through religious or text-based frameworks (Principles-first).
While Applications-first and Principles-first cultures adopt a focused, zoomed-in approach to reasoning, Holistic-thinking cultures prefer to study the entire system.
I must emphasize—before it colours your interpretation of her work—that Erin does not advocate cultural stereotyping. Instead, she argues that these deep-rooted cultural tendencies should be acknowledged and incorporated when designing leadership and management practices in a cross-cultural environment. Failing to recognize such contrasting tendencies can easily lead to workplace conflicts, reduced motivation, and project delays.
For all you know, you may already have deeply ingrained approaches to dealing with people—evaluating each individual purely on perceived merits and demerits and responding accordingly. Erin suggests that this instinctive approach can be flawed because it judges a person outside the context of their cultural environment and solely through the prism of your own. Leaders, she argues, should familiarise themselves with the cultural backgrounds of their teams and design policies, processes, and communication styles that accommodate those values rather than clash with them.
As a best practice across all dimensions, Erin proposes that leadership explicitly convey the behavioural approach the organization intends to adopt. For instance: this is how performance evaluations will be conducted; this is how grievances will be handled; this behaviour is acceptable; this is not; and so on. She also notes that these messages are better received when communicated through cultural bridges—that is, through trusted locals, seasoned professionals, or individuals who understand both cultures—rather than through a direct, top-down announcement.
Erin credits much of her research on the Leading dimension to Geert Hofstede, the acclaimed Dutch social psychologist who passed away recently. Hofstede’s pioneering work in cross-cultural behaviour remains highly influential. His Six Dimensions of National Culture framework is taught in management institutions around the world, and this is how India scores on those dimensions—
To better understand Hofstede’s framework and what these scores imply for India, you may refer to the summary available on his website.
After listening to the Deciding dimension in the audiobook—and blending the author’s views with some of my own observations—I arrived at an interesting insight: three countries renowned for the exceptional quality of their products and processes, Japan, Germany, and the USA, adopt contrasting approaches to Leading and Deciding.
Japanese and German organizations, known worldwide for their operational excellence in manufacturing, typically follow a hierarchical Leading style but a consensual Deciding style. Erin refers to the Japanese Ringi system, where proposals originate at lower levels of the organization, circulate upward layer by layer, and receive feedback at each stage before reaching the leader. Not only does everyone have a voice, but this mechanism also eliminates the need for excessive meetings—a remarkably efficient way to build consensus.
In contrast, the United States—often regarded as a global torchbearer for innovation and management—tends to adopt a more egalitarian Leading style but pairs it with a top-down Deciding approach. Coincidentally, a video I saw on Facebook while drafting this section illustrated this contrast rather amusingly 😊:
A child tugging at former Vice President Joe Biden’s blazer and asking questions—while he cheerfully indulged the interaction—was a clear marker of egalitarian Leading. Yet the moment he gestured “Number 1: Obama, Number 2: myself,” it instantly revealed the top-down nature of the American Deciding style. It’s funny how a random video can offer such pointed clues about the behavioural tendencies of a nation!
As you may have noticed, I designed the comparison card for the Trusting dimension (Figure 15) differently—using a storyline. The moral is straightforward: trusted relationships often yield greater dividends than trustworthy transactions. In reality, most nationalities adopt a flexible approach toward this dimension, adjusting their behaviour based on the country or counterpart involved rather than rigidly adhering to a single style everywhere.
Erin explains that Relationship-based Trusting places significant emphasis on building personal bonds, social connection, and network-driven references in business dealings—an approach still prevalent in Middle Eastern, Southeast Asian, and Latin American cultures. However, the value of Task-based Trusting, as practised in the USA and Germany, should not be overlooked. It is often more practical and efficient, offers clearer rules of engagement, and bases decisions on merit rather than personal familiarity.
Erin derives the Trusting dimension from two fundamental types of trust: Cognitive and Affective. Simply put—do you trust with your head (cognitive/task-based) or with your heart (affective/relationship-based)?
Would you feel comfortable if someone questioned your decision or performance in front of everyone—your peers, superiors, and subordinates?
I certainly wouldn’t. In my view, disagreement is best expressed sincerely and privately. Yet, as I learned from this section of the audiobook, many organizations actively encourage a more confrontational style of Disagreeing, viewing it as a sign of an engaged, motivated workforce.
The very fact that Erin chose Disagreeing—and not “Agreeing”—as a behavioural dimension to map subtly hinted to me that she herself comes from a more confrontational cultural background. To validate this hunch, I examined where France and the USA sit on her scale.
And as I suspected, Erin’s professional exposure to France (INSEAD) and her personal connection through her French husband, combined with her American upbringing, likely shaped her choice to highlight Disagreeing as a key behaviour 😅.
Given my background in Operations and my experience working for (and with) American organizations in India, I naturally gravitate toward the Linear-time approach as described in the Scheduling dimension. I prefer building a structured workday, breaking complex tasks into smaller components, and completing projects according to a planned timeline.
As a business owner in the mapping domain, I often find myself implicitly frustrated when customers or suppliers do not respond as scheduled, provide vague timelines, come unprepared or late for meetings, or introduce avoidable bottlenecks into the workflow.
Yet—ironically—I also admire these same individuals because they often manage to accomplish far more within their time, juggle multiple responsibilities, and still deliver results. Even so, I believe that success achieved through the Flexible-time approach should not become a habitual operating model. It relies heavily on probability, improvisation, and the hope that things go well. Linear-time, on the other hand, represents planned success. For India to remain consistently competitive—whether in business, sports, or any other field—organizations must gradually transition toward Linear-time systems.
Efficient operations, processes, and systems are fundamentally grounded in Linear-time principles. With Mapmyops, I hope to help organizations embrace this shift.
Although humans are not meant to function like machines, watching a Formula One pit crew service a race car in mere seconds is truly breathtaking—a testament to what a Linear-time culture can accomplish. Of course, this behavioural tendency has its drawbacks; it can feel rigid or unrealistic in the VUCA world we live in. Yet, to me personally, its benefits far outweigh its failings.
CONCLUSION
II hope you found this framework for mapping cultural tendencies useful. Erin has mapped several countries across these behavioural spectrums—both dimension-by-dimension and holistically across all eight dimensions. By understanding where two or more cultures differ, one can identify ways to reduce the scope of conflict and design workplace policies and best practices accordingly. Erin’s website also offers practical culture mapping tools that help create individual, group, organizational, and country-level behaviour maps—valuable resources for professionals operating in cross-cultural environments.
I thoroughly enjoyed listening to The Culture Map audiobook and you may choose to listen to it or purchase a copy yourself. If anything, the book might have been even stronger had it assessed culture through parameters beyond nationality alone. Large countries such as India, China, the USA, and Brazil contain immense internal diversity, so a single national profile may not accurately reflect regional realities. Perhaps a more granular lens—based on religion, age, gender, or profession—could have offered deeper nuance.
Additionally, Erin’s interpretation of culture focuses primarily on behavioural traits. This is a somewhat narrow view, though she does weave in historical and attitudinal elements through examples from time to time. That said, behavioural aspects of culture are indeed the most visible and consequential in workplace settings, so her emphasis feels justified.
Hope you enjoyed reading this post and drew interesting insights! I’d be happy to hear your feedback.
ABOUT US - OPERATIONS MAPPING SOLUTIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONS
Intelloc Mapping Services, Kolkata | Mapmyops.com offers a suite of Mapping and Analytics solutions that seamlessly integrate with Operations Planning, Design, and Audit workflows. Our capabilities include — but are not limited to — Drone Services, Location Analytics & GIS Applications, Satellite Imagery Analytics, Supply Chain Network Design, Subsurface Mapping and Wastewater Treatment. Projects are executed pan-India, delivering actionable insights and operational efficiency across sectors.
My firm's services can be split into two categories - Geographic Mapping and Operations Mapping. Our range of offerings are listed in the infographic below-
A majority of our Mapping for Operations-themed workflows (50+) can be accessed from this website's landing page. We respond well to documented queries/requirements. Demonstrations/PoC can be facilitated, on a paid-basis. Looking forward to being of service.
Regards,
Credits: Erin Meyer, Hachette Book Group
