The Lewis Model Explains Every Culture ln

The World

A world traveler who speaks ten languages, British linguist Richard Lewis
decided he was qualified to plot the world's cultures on a chart.

He did so while acknowledging the dangers of stereotypes.

"Determining national characteristics is treading a minefield of inaccurate

assessment and surprising exception," Lewis wrote. "There is, however,
such a thing as a national norm."

Many people think he nailed it, as his book "When Cultures Collide," now in
its third edition, has sold more than one million copies since it was first pub-
lished in 1996 and was called "an authoritative roadmap to navigating the
world's economy," by the Wall Street Journal.

Lewis plots countries in relation to three categories:

Linear-actives those who plan, schedule, organize, pursue ac-

-
tion chains, do one thing at a time. Germans and Swiss are in this
group.

Multi-actives those lively, loquacious peoples who do many

-
things at once, planning their priorities not according to a time
schedule, but according to the relative thrill or importance that
each appointment brings with it. ltalians, Latin Americans and Ar-
abs are members of this group.

Reactives those cultures that prioritize courtesy and respect,

-
listening quietly and calmly to their interlocutors and reacting
carefully to the other side's proposals. Chinese, Japanese and
Finns are in this group.
He says that this categorization of national norms does not change signifi-
cantly over time:
The behavior of people of different cultures is not something willy-nilly.
There exist clear trends, sequences and traditions. Reactions of Ameri-
cans, Europeans, and Asians alike can be forecasted, usually justified and
in the majority of cases managed. Even in countries where political and
economic change is currently rapid or sweeping (Russia, China, Hungary,
Poland, Korea, Malaysia, etc.) deeply rooted attitudes and beliefs will resist
a sudden transformation of values when pressured by reformists, govern-
ments or multinational conglomerates.

Here's the chart that explains the world:

CulturalTypes: Linear-active, multi-active,

Hrspanic Amenca, Erazrl
The Lewis Model Argenttna. M€rrco Chile reactive variations
Italy Portugal.i. \ j
Sparn Greece_ Sub-Saharan Alrrca
i
Malla. Cypt(,s \ --l

Rursra. Slpvakla, i' Saudr Arsbla.

Croatis \- Arab Counlrios

France. Poland. : .r
Sulgarra.
Hunggry. Lrlhuanro r., Iurkoy. lran
,,7

Selgrum lndia
lsrael Key:
: l[rear.icttve cu{)i. l,tctual
Außl.alia. flerrmark lndonosia. Malaysra.
dncrtlve plänll€r<
lreland Philapprnes
:i .nullr-aclrve. tvarrn elltc{toilAl
Austria,Czech Fleputrlic. lqquaclous. rmpulsrvo (orea.
N€lh0rlandg Norvray. :
Thäiländ
$lovcnrn yellovl : reäclrve . coufleolrs. afi'atrle.
rtLLurnnrdl6ltrrq. LUrllrlunttlict
good ltstener
u.s.A. Chrna

Gerrrrany,
Sr.rrtzerland,
Luxambourg
i :t

UK
,rr)t-)OOl
Sweden. Frnland. Cänsda Sinqapore Tar$ran. Japsn
F€4CrWS Vrelnnnt

L.elvta Eslonia llong Kong

Some more details on the categories

Linear- Active Multi-Active Reactive

Talks half of the time Talks most of the time Listens most of the time
Does one thing at the Does several things at Reacts to partner's
time once action
Looks at general
Plans ahead step by step Plans grand outline only
principles
Polite but direct Emotional Polite, indirect
Confronts with logic Confronts emotionally Never canfronts
Job-oriented People-oriented Very people-oriented
$tatements are
Sticks to facts Feelings before facts
promises
Result-oriented Relationship-oriented Harmony-oriented
Sticks to agenda Roams back and forth Often asks for "repeats"
Faceto-face contact
Written word important Spoken word important
important
body
Restrained Unrestrained body
Subtle body language
language language

The point of all of this analysis is to understand how to interact with people
from different cultures, a subject in which Richard Lewis Communications
provides coaching and consultation.

"By focusing on the cultural roots of national behavior, both in society and
business, we can foresee and calculate with a surprising degree of accura-
cy how others will react to our plans
for them, and we can make certain assumptions as to how they will ap-
proach us," Lewis writes.

http://www. busi nessinsid er. com/the-lewis-model-20 1 3-9

http://changingminds,org/explanations/culture/hall culture.htm

flall's cultural factors

Edward T. Hall was an anthropologist who made early discoveries of key cultural factors. In
particular he is known for his high and low context cultural factors.

Context
Iligh context
In a high-context culture, there are many contextual elements that help people to understand
the rules. As a result, much is taken for granted.

This can be very confusing for person who does not understand the 'unwritten rules' of the
culture.

Low context
In a low-context culture, very little is taken for granted. Whilst this means that more
explanation is needed, it also means there is less chance of misunderstanding particularly
when visitors are present.

Contrasting the two

French contracts tend to be short (in physical length, not time duration) as much of the
information is available within the high-context French culture. American content, on the
other hand, is low-context and so contracts tend to be longer in order to explain the detail

Highly mobile environments where people come and go need lower-context culture. With a
stable population, however, a higher context culture may develop.

Note the similarity with Trompenaars' Universalism (low context) and Particularism (high
context).
 High-context culture Low-context culture
Factor

Many covert and implicit Many overt and explicit

Overtness of messages, with use of metaphor messages that are simple
messages and reading between the lines. and clear.

Locus of control Inner locus of control and Outer locus of control and
and attribution for personal acceptance for blame of others for failure
failure failure
Much nonverbal communication More focus on verbal
Use of non-verbal
communication than body
communication
language

Expression of Reserved, inward reactions Visible, external, outward

reaction reaction

Strong diistinction between Flexible and open

Cohesion and
ingroup and outgroup. grouping patterns,
separation of groups
Strong sense of family. changing as needed

Strong people bonds with Fragile bonds between

People bonds afhliation to family and people with little sense of
community loyalty.
High commitment to long-term Low commitment to
Level of
relationships. relationship. Task more
commitment to
Relationship more important than important than
relationships
task. relationships.

Flexibility of time Time is open and flexible. Time is highly orgarized.

Process is more important than Product is more important
product than process

Time
Monochronic time

M-Time, as he called it, means doing one thing at a time. It assumes careful planning and
scheduling and is a familiar Western approach that appears in disciplines such as 'time
management'.

Monochronic people tend also to be low context

Polychronic time

In Polychronic cultures, human interaction is valued over time and material things, leading to
a lesser concern for'getting things done' -- they do get done, but more in their own time.
Aboriginal and Native Americans have typical polychronic cultures, where 'talking stick'
rneetings can go on for as long as somebody has something to say.

Polychronic people tend also to be high context.

Contrasting the two

Western cultures vary in their focus on monochronic or polychronic time. Americans are
strongly monochronic whilst the French have a much gteater polychronic tendency -- thus a
French person may turn up to a meeting late and think nothing of it (much to the annoyance of
a German or American co-worker).

Note the similarity with Trompenaars'time as sequence (monochronic) and time as

sSrnchronization (polychronic).

Factor Monochronie action Polychronlc action

Actions do one thing at a time do many things at once
Focus Concentrate on the job at hand Are easily distracted
Think about when things must be Think about what will be
Attention to time
achieved achieved
Priority Put the job first Put relationships first

Respect for Borrow and lend things often

Seldom borrow or lend things
property and easily

base promptness relationship

Timeliness Emphasize promptness
factors

Space
Hall was concerned about space and our relationships within it. He called the study of such
space Proxemics.

We have concerns about space in many situations, from personal body space to space in the
office, parking space, space at home.

The need for space

Some people need more space in all areas. People who encroach into that space are seen as a
threat.

Personal space is an example of a mobile form of territory and people need less or greater
distances between them and others. A Japanese person who needs less space thus will stand
closer to an American, inadvertently making the American uncomfortable.
Some people need bigger homes, bigger cars, bigger offices and so on. This may be driven by
cultural factors, for example the space in America needs to greater use of space, whilst
Japanese need less space (partly as a result of limited useful space in Japan).

High territoriality

Some people are more territorial than others with greater concern for ownership. They seek to
mark out the areas which are theirs and perhaps having boundary wars with neighbors.

This happens right down to desk-level, where co-workers may do battle over a piece of paper
which overlaps from one person's area to another. At national level, many wars have been
fought over boundaries.

Territoriality also extends to anything that is 'mine' and ownership concems extend to material
things. Security thus becomes a subject of great concem for people with a high need for
ownership.

People high tenitoriality tend also to be low context.

Low territoriality

People with lower territoriality have less ownership of space and boundaries are less
important to them. They will share territory and ownership with little thought.

They also have less concern for material ownership and their sense of 'stealing' is less
developed (this is more important for highly territorial people).

People with low tenitorialitytend also to be high context.

Contrasting

Australian Aboriginal people will say that they belong to the land rather than the other way
around. Before we scotch this, we should remember that they have thrived in harsh conditions
for thousands of years. Western society, on the other hand has shown much barbarity over
ownership of land.

So what?
When working across cultures, pay attention to high and low cultures through the actions of
others. For example if people arelate for meetings it may be because they are polychronic,
not because they are disrespectfulorlazy.

When you understand the personal, national or organizational culture, then you can seek to
align with them and hence gain greater influence.

References
Hall, E.T. (1959). The Silent Language,New York: Doubleday
Hall, E.T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension, New York: Doubleday

F{all, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture,New York: Doubleday

Ffail, E.T. (1983). The Dance of Life, The Other Dimension of Time,New York: Doubleday

Ffall, E.T. (1985). Hidden Dffirences: Studies in International Communication,Hamburg:

Gnrnder and Jahr

Ffa[, E.T. (1990). Hidden Dffirences: Doing Business with the Japanese, GardenCity, NY:
Anchor Press/ Doubleday

Flall, E.T. (1990). Understanding Cultural Dffirences, Germans, Frenclt and Americans,
Yarmouth: Intercultural Press
Intercultural competence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A theoretical construct for cross-cultural competence, language proficiency, and region-

al expertise.

lntercultural competence is the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately

with people of other cultures:l1l

a Appropriately. Valued rules, norms, and expectations of the relationship are not
violated significantly.
a Effectively. Valued goals or rewards (relative to costs and alternatives) are ac-
complished.

ln interactions with people from foreign cultures, a person who is interculturally compe-
tent understands the culture-specific concepts of perception, thinking, feeling, and act-
ing.

lntercultural competence is also called "cross-cultural competence" (3C)

1 Contents

. 1 Basics
' 2 Cross-cultural competence
o and international
. 3 Cultural diflerences
. 4 Assessment
o 4.1 Quantitative assessment instruments
o 4.2 Qualitative assessment instruments
. 5 Criticisms
. 6 See also
. 7 References

2 Basics

Cultures can be different not only between continents or nations but also within the
sarne company and even within the same familv. The differences may be ethical, ethnic,
oeooraphical, historical, 1no1el, political, or reliqious.

The basic requirements for intercultural competence are empathy, an understanding of

other people's behaviors and ways of thinking, and the ability to express one's own way
of thinking. lt is a balance, situatively adapted, among four parts:

. Knowledge (about other cultures and other people's behaviors)

. Empathy (understanding the feelings and needs of other people)
. Self-confidence (knowledge of one's own desires, strengths, weaknesses, and
emotional stability)
. Cultural identitv (knowledge of one's own culture)
3 Gross-cultural competence

Main article: Cultural competence

Cross-cultural competence (3C) has generated confusing and contradictory definitions

because it has been studied by a wide variety of academic approaches and professional
fields. One author identified eleven different terms that have some equivalence to 3C:
cultural sawy, astuteness, appreciation, literacy or fluency, adaptability, terrain, exper-
tise, competency, awareness, intelligence, and understanding.l2l The United States Ar-
my Research lnstitute, which is currently engaged in a study of 3C has defined it as "A
set of cognitive, behavioral, and affective/motivational components that enable individu-
als to adapt effectively in intercultural environments."l3l

Organizations in academia, business, health care, government security, and develop-

mental aid agencies have all sought to use 3C in one way or another. Poor results have
often been obtained due to a lack of rigorous study of 3C and a reliance on "commo
S@" aPProaches'l2l
Cross-cultural competence does not operate in a vacuum, however. One theoretical
construct posits that 3C, lanquaqe proficiency, and regional knowledge are distinct skills
that are inextricably linked, but to varying degrees depending on the context in which
they are employed. ln educational settings, Bloom's affective and cognitive taxono-
miest4lrsl serve as an effective framework for describing the overlapping areas among
these three disciplines: at the receiving and knowledge levels, 3C can operate with
near-independence from language proficiency and regional knowledge. But, as one ap-
proaches the internalizing and evaluation levels, the overlapping areas approach totali-
ty.

The development of intercultural competence is mostly based on the individual's experi-

ences while he or she is communicating with different cultures. When interacting with
people from other cultures, the individual experiences certain obstacles that are caused
by differences in cultural understanding between two people from different cultures.
Such experiences may motivate the individual to acquire skills that can help him to
communicate his point of view to an audience belonging to a different cultural ethnicity
and background.

4 lmmigrants and international students

A salient issue, especially for people living in countries other than their native country, is
the issue of which culture they should follow: their native culture or the one in their new
surroundings.

lnternational students also face this issue they have a choice of modifying their cultural
boundaries and adapting to the culture around them or holding on to their native culture
and surrounding themselves with people from their own country. The students who de-
cide to hold on to their native culture are those who experience the most problems in
their university life and who encounter frequent culture shocks. But international stu-
dents who adapt themselves to the culture surrounding them (and who interact more
with domestic students) will increase their knowledge of the domestic culture, which
may help them to "blend in" more. Such individuals may be said to have adopted bicul-
tural identities.
5 Cultural differences

See also: Geert Hofstede

Gultural characteristics can be measured along several dimensions. The ability to per-
ceive them and to cope with them is fundamentalfor intercultural competence. These
characteristics include:

a Collectivism
o lnterdependence of every human;
o Reverse of individualism;
o High priority on group than individual;
o Collectivist cultures include Pakistan, lndia and Japan
a lndividualismt6I
o tT'roräl worth of individual;
o prorTlote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independ-
ence and self-reliance;
o advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over
the state or a social group;
o Liberalism, existentialism and anarchism are examples of movements that
take the human individual
a Masculine
o characteristics or roles appropriate to, a man;
o Opposite can be expressed by terms such as "unmanly"'or epicene.
o Masculinity pertains to societies in which social gender roles are clearly
distinct
a Feminine I0l
o set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with girls and
women;
o socially constructed, made up of both socially-defined and biologically-
created factors;
o Traits traditionally cited as feminine include gentleness, empathy, and
sensitivity.
o Femininity pertains to societies in which social gender roles overlap.
a Uncertainty avoidancetrl
o reflects the extent to which members of a society attempt to cope with
anxiety by minimizing uncertainty;
o ultGertainty avoidance dimension expresses the degree to which a person
in society feels uncomfortable with a sense of uncertainty and ambiguity;
o Countries exhibiting strong Uncertainty avoidance lndex or UAI maintain
rigid codes of belief and behavior and are intolerant of unorthodox behav-
ior and ideas. Weak UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in
which practice counts more than principles;
o People in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance tend to be more emo-
tional. Low uncertainty avoidance cultures accept and feel comfortable in
unstructured situations or changeable environments and try to have as
few rules as possible;
o People in these cultures tend to be more pragmatic, they are more tolerant
of change.
a Power distancelOl
 o people in some cultures accept a higher degree of unequally distributed
power than do people in other cultures;
o high power distance culture the relationship between bosses and subordi-
nates is one of dependence;
o low power distance society the relationship between bosses and subordi-
nates is one of interdependence;
o People in high distance countries tend to believe that power and authority
are facts of life
a Chronemics:
a Monochrone
o time-fixed, "one after the other"
o Doing one thing at a time
o lnvolved with doing the job
o Time commitments taken seriously
o Follows plan
o Deals with short-term relations
o Narrow focus
o Lower risk tolerance
o Self-reliant ethic
o Sequential tasks
o Positional power
a Polychrone "trI
o Many things at the same time, "multitaskinq". Also called "long-term orien-
tation."
o lnvolved with family, friends, customers
o Commitments in time mean little
o Changes plan
o Builds lifetime relationships
o Big picture
o Higher risk tolerance
o Networking focus
o Simultaneous engineering
o Charismatic leadership
o lntuitive
o Errortolerant system
a Structu ral characteristics:
o basic personality,
o values,
o the experience of time and space,
o selective perception,
o nonverbal communication,
o and patterns of behavior

6 Assessment

The assessment of cross-cultural competence is another field that is rife with controver-
sy. One survey identified 86 assessment instruments for 3C.la A United States Army
Research lnstitute study narrowed the list down to ten quantitative instruments that
were suitable for further exploration of their reliability and validity.lsl
The following characteristics are tested and observed for the assessment of intercultural
competence as an existing ability or as the potential to develop it: ambiquity tolerance,
openness to contacts, flexibility in behavior, emotional stability, motivation to perform,
enpathy, metacommunicative competence, and polycentrism

7 Quantitative assessment instruments

Three examples of quantitative assessment instruments are:l3l

a the lnter-cultural Devel opment lnventorv

a the Cultural lntelliqence
o the Multi-cultural Perso nalitv Questionnaire

I Qualitative assessment instruments

Research in the area of 3C assessment, while thin, points to the value of qualitative as-
sessment instruments in concert with quantitative ones.rslreltl0l Qualitative instruments,
such as scenario-based assessments, are useful for gaining insight into intercultural
competence.tl llt12ltl 3ll14l

lntercultural coaching frameworks, such as the ICCATM (lntercultural Communication

and Collaboration Appraisal), do not attempt an assessment; they provide guidance for
personal improvement based upon the identification of personal traits, strengths, and
WeakneSSeS.115lt16l

An interesting aspect in management offers Riether in his book "Business Cooperation -

cultural lntegration as Keyfactor - Reasons for Failing and improving chances for suc-
cess" of business-related cooperation and globalization. He assumes in his CRT-model
that Communication, Relationship building and Trust are the essential factors to enable
cooperation.Ilzl lntegration is not just to understand the other but to accept and to inte-
grate the others behavior i.e. to act in a way which the other will understand, accept but
also to meet expectationsllZl

I Griticisms

It is important that cross-cultural competence training and skills does not break down
into the application of stereotypes. Although its goal is to promote understanding be-
tween groups of individuals that, as a whole, think differently, it may fail to recognize
specific differences between individuals of any given group. Such differences can be
more significant than the differences between groups, especially in the case of hetero-
geneous populations and value systems.llSl

Madison (2006Fe1 has criticized the tendency of 3C training for its tendency to simplify
migration and cross-cultural processes into stages and phases. Madison's article offers
an outline of the original research.

See also a recent article by Witte summarizing objections to cultural theories used in
business and social life.lal

10 See also
 a Allophilia Existential mi
a Bennett scale Faux pas
a Cross-cultural communica- lnteraction
tion I ntercultural communication
Cultural assimilation lntercultural com nication orincioles
Cultural com eten lnterculturalism
Cultural diversity lntercultural cities
Cultural intel e lntercultu I relations
Cultural pluralism I nterpersonal commu nication

Etiouette in Africa Montreal-Ph ilippines cutlerv controversy

Etiquette in Asia Proxemics
Etiquette in Australia and Social identity
New Zealand Transcu Itrrration
Etiouette in nada and the Worldwid etiouette
United States Xenocentrism
Etiquette in Europe Anthropoloqist
Etiquette in Latin America
Etiquette in the Middle East
lslamic etiquette

11 References

1. Messner, W., & Schäfer, N. (2012) The ICCA Facilitator's Manual. lntercultural
Communication and Collaboration Appraisal. London: GloBus Research, p.41
(also see: http://icca.qlobusresearch.com); Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). A Model of
lntercultural Communication Competence. ln L. A. Samovar, & R. E. Porter, ln-
tercultural Communication - A Reader (pp. 375-87). Belmont: Wadsworth Pub-
lishing.
2. Selmeski, B.R. (2007). Military cross-cultural competence: Core concepts and in-
dividual developmenf. Kingston: Royal Military College of Canada Centre for Se-
curity, Armed Forces, & Society.
3. Abbe, A., Gulick, L.M.V., & Herman, J.L. (2007). Cross-cultural competence in
Army leaders: A conceptual and empiricalfoundation. Washington, DC: U.S. Ar-
my Research lnstitute.
4. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook l:
Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
5. Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1973). Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. fhe C/assification of Educational Goals. Handbook Il: Affective Do-
main. New York: McKay Co., lnc.
6. "Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions". ClearlyCultural.com.
7. Fantini, A.E. (2006). 87 Assessmenf tools of intercultural competence [Electronic
versionl. Brattleboro, VT: School for lnternational Training. Retrieved June 20,
2007 from http ://www.sit. ed u/publications/docs/fei I append ix f . pdf
B. Kitsantas, A. (2004). Studying abroad: the role of college students' goals on the
development of cross-cultural skills and global understanding. Col/ege Student
Journal,3B(3). Retrieved July 9, 2007 from ERIC database.
9. Lessard-Clouston, M. (1997). "Towards an understanding of culture in L2|FL ed-
ucation". Ronko: K.G. studies in English 25 131-150.
10.Lievens, F.; Harris, M.; Van Keer, E.; Bisqueret, C. (2003). "Predicting cross-
cultural training performance: The validity of personality, cognitive ability, and di-
 mensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description inter-
view". Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (3): 476489. doi:10.103710021-
901 0.88.3.476. PM lD 1281 4296.
1 1 . Davis, B. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
12.Doll, W. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teacher's
College Press.
13. English, F. & Larson, R. (1996). Curriculum management for educational and so-
cial seruice organizations. Springfield, lL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.
14. Palomba, A. & Banta, T. (1999). Assessmenf essenfia/s. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
15. Messner, W. & Schäfer, N. (201 2). The ICCATM Facilitator's ManualLondon:
Createspace.
16. "What is The ICCA?". lntercultural Communication and Collaboration Appraisal.
GloBus Research Ltd. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
17.RietherW.(2014). Bustness Cooperation cultural lntegration as KeyfacforSaar-
bruecken: AV Akademikerverlag ISBN 978-3-639-67924-3
18. Rathje, S. (2007). lntercultural Competence: The Status and Future of a Contro-
versial Concept. Journalfor Language and lntercultural Communication,T(4),
254-266
19. Madison, Greg (2006). "Existential Migration". Existential Analysis 17 (2):238-
60.
20.Witte, A. "Making the Case for a Post-National Cultural Analysis of Organiza-
tions," Journal of Management Inquiry Q012) 21:141. Originally published online
13 September 2011.