Book Review: ‘The Culture Map' by Erin Meyer
'The Culture Map' by Erin Meyer, which was published in 2014, discusses the cultural differences between people and how they influence business interactions.
American author and professor at INSEAD Business School, Meyer talks from personal experience about fundamental points to pay attention to while having interactions with international business owners, peers, or clients.
She uncovers the meaning behind certain behaviors and suggests solutions to overcome the differences between people to accomplish shared goals.
As a cross-cultural management expert, Meyer discusses the elements that contribute to people's communication and collaboration, including evaluation, persuasion, leadership, decision-making, and trust.
Using practical examples, she explains how misunderstandings sometimes happen when people interpret attitudes using their own lens, which may not be appropriate when relying on personal background and general understanding of the world.
She writes about people appreciating and focusing on what they find meaningful to them. Some cultures value direct feedback, while others tend to lean toward indirect communication when asked to give an opinion.
In addition, the author provides strategies to overcome differences and find common ground, focusing on the importance of learning and understanding cultural norms, and also being adaptable when an individual becomes part of an international team.
She also encourages readers to understand and respect other traditions to build effective relationships with the world around us.
'The Culture Map' is a guide for people who may be working in multicultural environments and want to elevate teamwork while improving intercultural skills.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Purdue Pharma's $7B Opioid Settlement Plan Could Get Votes From Victims and Cities
Purdue Pharma's $7 billion-plus plan to settle thousands of lawsuits over the toll of opioids will go before a judge Friday, potentially setting up votes on whether to accept it for local governments, people who became addicted to the drug, and other groups. This month, 49 states announced they have signed on to the proposal. Only Oklahoma, which has a separate settlement with the company, is not involved. US Bankruptcy Court Judge Sean Lane could decide as soon as Friday whether to advance the nationwide settlement, which was hammered out in negotiations between the company, groups that have sued, and representatives of members of the Sackler family who own the company. If Lane moves the plan forward as it's been presented, government entities, emergency room doctors, insurers, families of children born into withdrawal from the powerful prescription painkiller, individual victims and their families, and others would have until Sept. 30 to vote on whether to accept the deal. The settlement is a way to avoid trials with claims from states alone that total more than $2 trillion in damages. If approved, the settlement would be among the largest in a wave of lawsuits over the past decade as governments and others sought to hold drugmakers, wholesalers, and pharmacies accountable for the opioid epidemic that started rising in the years after OxyContin hit the market in 1996. The other settlements together are worth about $50 billion, and most of the money is to be used to combat the crisis. In the early 2000s, most opioid deaths were linked to prescription drugs, including OxyContin. Since then, heroin and then illicitly produced fentanyl became the biggest killers. In some years, the class of drugs was linked to more than 80,000 deaths, but that number dropped sharply last year. Last year, the US Supreme Court rejected a version of Purdue's proposed settlement. The court found it was improper to protect members of the Sackler family from lawsuits over opioids even though they themselves were not filing for bankruptcy protection. In the new version, groups that don't opt in to the settlement would still have the right to sue members of the wealthy family, whose name once adorned museum galleries around the world and programs at several prestigious US universities. Under the plan, the Sackler family members would give up ownership of Purdue. They resigned from the company's board and stopped receiving distributions from its funds before the company's initial bankruptcy filing in 2019. The remaining entity would get a new name, and its profits would be dedicated to battling the epidemic. Most of the money would go to state and local governments to address the nation's addiction and overdose crisis, but potentially more than $850 million would go directly to individual victims. That makes it different from the other major settlements. The payments would not begin until after a hearing, likely in November, during which Judge Lane would be asked to approve the entire plan if enough of the affected parties agree.
Argaam
2 hours ago
- Argaam
Oil prices drop 2%, head for weekly gains
Oil prices were mixed on Friday, after the White House delayed a decision on potential US intervention in the Iran-Israel conflict. Despite the volatility, the prices are on track for weekly gains. Brent crude futures for August delivery fell by 2.1%, or $1.65, to $77.20 a barrel at 8:10 AM Makkah time. Meanwhile, US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures for August—the most actively traded contract—rose 0.65%, or 47 cents, to $73.97 a barrel. This came after a White House statement saying President Donald Trump would decide within the next two weeks whether the US will intervene in the ongoing Middle East conflict, according to Reuters. Chinese customs data released today showed fuel oil imports reached 1.30 million tons in May, equivalent to about 267,000 barrels per day—down 29% from April and 40% lower than the same period last year.
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
The success of a key NATO summit is in doubt after Spain rejects a big hike in defense spending
The success of a key NATO summit hung in the balance on Friday after Spain announced that it cannot raise the billions of dollars needed to meet a new defense investment pledge demanded by US President Donald Trump. Trump and his NATO counterparts are meeting for two days in the Netherlands starting next Tuesday. He insists that US allies should commit to spending at least 5 percent of gross domestic product, but that requires investment at an unprecedented scale. Trump has cast doubt over whether the US would defend allies that spend too little. Setting the spending goal would be a historic decision. It would see all 32 countries invest the same amount in defense for the first time. Only last week NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte expressed confidence that they would endorse it. But in a letter to Rutte on Thursday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wrote that committing to a 5 percent target would not only be unreasonable but also counterproductive. 'It would move Spain away from optimal spending and it would hinder the (European Union's) ongoing efforts to strengthen its security and defense ecosystem,' Sánchez wrote in the letter seen by The Associated Press. Spain is not entirely alone. Belgium, Canada, France, and Italy would also struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars, but Spain is the only country to officially announce its intentions, making it hard to row back from such a public decision. Beyond his economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern, and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He's under growing pressure to call an early election. In response to the letter, Rutte's office said only that 'discussions among allies on a new defense investment plan are ongoing.' NATO's top civilian official had been due to table a new proposal on Friday to try to break the deadlock. The US and French envoys had also been due to update reporters about the latest developments ahead of the summit but postponed their briefings. Rutte and many European allies are desperate to resolve the problem by Tuesday so that Trump does not derail the summit as he did during his first term at NATO headquarters in 2018. After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO allies agreed that 2 percent of GDP should be the minimum they spend on their military budgets. But NATO's new plans for defending its own territory against outside attack require investment of at least 3 percent. Spain agreed to those plans in 2023. The 5 percent goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP. A further 1.5 percent would go to upgrade roads, bridges, ports, and airfields so that armies can better deploy and to prepare societies for future attacks. Mathematically, 3.5 plus 1.5 equals Trump's 5 percent. But a lot is hiding behind the figures, and details of what kinds of things can be included remain cloudy. Countries closest to Russia–Belarus and Ukraine–have all agreed to the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, which is hosting the June 24–25 summit. The Netherlands estimates that NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5 percent to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros (18 billion to 22 billion). Supplying arms and ammunition to Ukraine, which Spain does, will also be included as core defense spending. NATO estimates that the US spent around 3.2 percent of GDP on defense last year. The additional 1.5 percent spending basket is murkier. Rutte and many members argue that infrastructure used to deploy armies to the front must be included, as well as building up defense industries and preparing citizens for possible attacks. 'If a tank is not able to cross a bridge. If our societies are not prepared in case war breaks out for a whole of society approach. If we are not able to really develop the defense industrial base, then the 3.5 percent is great, but you cannot really defend yourselves,' Rutte said this month. Spain wanted climate change spending included, but that proposal was rejected. Cyber-security and counter-hybrid warfare investment should also make the cut. Yet with all the conjecture about what might be included, it's difficult to see how Rutte arrived at this 1.5 percent figure. It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit the 2 percent target, although most will this year, and they had a decade to get there. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That's far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate that Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within 5–10 years. The US insists that it cannot be an open-ended pledge and that a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5 percent target. Another issue is how fast spending should be ramped up. 'I have a cunning plan for that,' Rutte said. He wants the allies to submit annual plans that lay out how much they intend to increase spending by. For Europe, Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat. A major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks, and GPS jamming incidents is blamed on Moscow. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The United States also insists that China poses a threat. But for European people to back a hike in national defense spending, their governments require acknowledgment that the Kremlin remains NATO's biggest security challenge. The billions required for security will be raised by taxes, going into debt, or shuffling money from other budgets. But it won't be easy for many, as Spain has shown. On top of that, Trump has made things economically tougher by launching a global tariff war–ostensibly for US national security reasons–something America's allies find hard to fathom.
