Cultural Influences in Decision Making Process  ## Metadata - Author: [[countrynavigator.com]] - Full Title: Cultural Influences in Decision Making Process - Category: #articles - Document Note: --- tags: - #crosscultural - #decisionmaking - #leadership Author: Sue Bryant Source: Country Navigator (website) Reference: https://www.countrynavigator.com/blog/how-do-different-cultures-approach-decision-making date created: 2025-08-21 00:00 --- # Title: Cultural influences in decision making process ## Table of Contents: - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📖 References](#-references-1) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) Assessment](#-deib-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-belonging-assessment) - [✅ Logical validity](#-logical-validity) - [🔍 DARVO Analysis Prompt](#-darvo-analysis-prompt) - [🔍 SEO Evaluation](#-seo-evaluation) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### References: - Country Navigator. “How do different cultures approach decision making?” 2021-05-13. - Author bio included on page: Sue Bryant. ## 📝 Summary: The article outlines how decision-making styles vary across cultures and why understanding these differences matters for cross-cultural collaboration. It contrasts flatter management cultures that still make top-down decisions for speed (e.g., USA) with consensus-driven approaches (Scandinavia, Japan via ringi-sho), and hierarchical, risk-averse contexts (China, Arab cultures). It emphasizes drivers such as speed, hierarchy, harmony, group benefit, risk appetite, and relationships. ## 📖 Main Content: The piece begins by framing key questions: What drives decisions (profit, time, relationships)? Who decides, and how do others contribute? It warns against stereotypes while offering general patterns. - USA: Egalitarian discussion but often top-down final call for speed; snap decisions aren’t revisited; rushing others abroad can backfire. - Germany: Steeper hierarchies with formal address, but inclusive of technical experts; structured, process-oriented, and managers own responsibility. - Scandinavia: Group-benefit orientation; extensive consensus-building; decisions are slow but stable once made. - Japan: Harmony and consensus prioritized via ringi-sho, a circulation of a written proposal for stamps (hanko) to avoid open conflict. - China: Collectivist and hierarchical; slow, deliberate, risk-averse; seniority and age confer decision authority; group good prevails. - Arab contexts: Hierarchical and risk-averse; top-level decisions after consultation with equals; honor, reputation, and relationships outweigh speed; personal networks are pivotal. Personal insight: For global OSS and WordPress governance, these patterns map to different RFC and consensus rituals. Japan/Scandinavia mirror Request for Comments + wide review. USA-style speed maps to “make a call, iterate later,” useful for security patches but risky for community trust. Germany’s expert-led process suggests formal technical councils. China/Arab patterns highlight respect for senior maintainers and relationship capital in resolving conflicts. ### 🗒️ Notes - Why it matters - Aligns expectations on speed vs consensus. - Determines who to involve (managers, experts, elders, network ties). - Reduces friction in cross-cultural negotiations and projects. - USA - Flat discourse, top-down decision for speed. - Snap calls rarely reopened. - Risk: rushing slows you down across cultures valuing deliberation. - Germany - Formal hierarchy with expert-inclusive process. - Values structure, process, productivity. - Individual responsibility for outcomes. - Scandinavia - Social welfare of group prioritized. - Long consensus cycles; high post-decision stability. - Japan - Harmony and face-saving central. - Ringi-sho circulation; hanko indicates alignment/dissent discreetly. - Multiple ringi may circulate concurrently. - China - Confucian hierarchy; slow, deliberate decisions. - Senior, older leaders decide; risk-averse. - Group good and correctness over speed. - Arab contexts - Hierarchical; decisions from the top after peer consultation. - Honor and relationships trump speed; decisions not questioned. - Personal connections guide who is trusted in business. - Cross-cutting drivers - Speed vs stability; hierarchy vs egalitarianism; risk appetite; relationship centrality; harmony vs open conflict norms. ## 📖 References: - Country Navigator article: “How do different cultures approach decision making?” https://www.countrynavigator.com/blog/how-do-different-cultures-approach-decision-making - Related background (external, optional): Hofstede cultural dimensions; Erin Meyer’s “The Culture Map”. ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: 1) Original idea (USA): The U.S. encourages challenging authority, yet once a manager decides—often quickly for momentum—that decision stands. This fixation on speed can undermine Americans abroad where deliberation is expected. Paraphrase: Although Americans are comfortable debating leaders, final choices often come swiftly from management and are rarely revisited. This bias toward rapid action can disadvantage U.S. teams when collaborating with partners who value extended consideration. 2) Original idea (Japan ringi-sho): Consensus is achieved by circulating a written proposal for stamped approval, avoiding confrontation and preserving harmony; multiple proposals can circulate at once. Paraphrase: Japanese organizations build alignment by passing a documented case to stakeholders who signal agreement with their seals. The method limits overt disagreement, protects face, and can involve several parallel proposals. ## 📰 Newsletter: Learning and Building on the Web: Culture Meets Code This week, we’re exploring how culture shapes decisions in teams—critical when your pull request spans time zones. Highlights: - Learning web dev: New “Decision-Ready PRs” checklist to help junior devs frame tradeoffs (perf, accessibility, DX) and request the right reviewers. - Recent updates: Core Web Vitals refresh and the latest on WordPress 6.x performance patches—plus a deep dive into consensus-building in open-source governance. - Community spotlight: Shout-out to contributors facilitating multilingual onboarding sessions. Your empathy accelerates velocity the right way. - New plugins: A11y audit companion for Gutenberg; an RFC workflow helper to standardize proposal reviews. Read: Cultural decision styles and why your “quick fix” might stall in consensus cultures. External primer: Erin Meyer’s The Culture Map and GitHub’s guide on [maintainer community health](https://github.community/t/maintainers/). Tip: Match your approach to your audience—offer fast prototypes for U.S.-style speed, ringi-like memos for consensus teams, and relationship-first intros for hierarchical contexts. ## ✅ Action Items: Prompt for alignment with Open Source Advocacy and OSPO goals: - Purpose: Map each article’s insights to open-source contributor engagement, governance design, and transparent decision-making in WordPress. - Instructions: 1) Identify the decision drivers (speed, consensus, hierarchy, risk, relationships) present in the article. 2) Translate drivers into OSS practices: e.g., RFCs, reviewer assignment, CODEOWNERS, decision logs, Request for Comments windows, consensus thresholds. 3) Define inclusive onboarding steps: mentorship pairings (relationship-centric), async proposals (consensus-centric), office hours with senior maintainers (hierarchical cultures). 4) Outline funding transparency: publish rationale for grants/fellowships and timelines matching slower, deliberative cultures. 5) Governance artifacts: create public decision records, meeting minutes, and rationale memos to support accountability. 6) Education plan: workshops on cross-cultural collaboration for contributors; documentation with examples and checklists. 7) OSPO strategy: codify multi-path decisions—fast-tra - Summary: Here are a few general examples of cultural influences in decision making process styles around the world. - URL: https://www.countrynavigator.com/blog/how-do-different-cultures-approach-decision-making  It is important to understand the process of cultural influences in decision making if we are aiming to understand more about the culture we are integrating with or doing business in. Is it profit? Time? Relationships? Not only this, but it’s essential to know who makes the decisions, and what role others play. In autocratic cultures like those of Latin America, France or the Arab world, decisions tend to come from the top, while in countries with flatter management styles, like the Netherlands, Australia or Israel, consensus is important. On the other hand, some of the most apparently egalitarian cultures can have a surprisingly top-down style when it comes to making a decision. In other situations, the corporate culture may override any local cultural traits. There will always be variations on cultural stereotypes, but here are a few general examples of cultural influences in decision making styles around the world. **If you prefer video over text, we made a short under 4 min video for you:** #### Here are a few examples of cultural influences in decision making: ##### The USA decision making style The USA is a culture of very flat management structures – until it comes to decision making. The culture is egalitarian in that individuals are free to challenge authority, but often surprisingly top-down in that the priority is usually sped and to get things moving along, a manager may make a snap decision. Once this has been made, it won’t be questioned. This obsession with speed can be the downfall of Americans doing business with other cultures, where decision making can take a long time and trying to rush the other side puts you in a position of weakness. ##### German decision making style German companies tend to have steeper hierarchies. In general, the boss in the workplace is referred to and there is a degree of formality. Yet German managers usually include their co-workers and subordinates in the decision making process, where the input of technical experts is valued. Structure, process and productivity are all important drivers in German decision making. Because German culture is individualistic, managers are prepared to take responsibility for the choices they make. ##### Scandinavian decision making style Scandinavian cultures are more likely to base decision making on social factors; what will benefit the group, as opposed to the individual. In Sweden, decisions are made by consensus and as such, may take a long time. Once a decision is made, it won’t change, generally, because so much discussion has gone into making it in the first place. By the time a conclusion is reached, everybody is on board. ##### Japanese decision making style Japan is not dissimilar in the end goal, although culturally, it differs greatly from Sweden. What the two have in common, though, is the desire to maintain harmony and the well-being of the group, which matters more than individual choice. The traditional way of reaching consensus in Japan is via ‘*ringi-sho*’, in which an individual presents a *ringi*, a written document stating their case, and circulates it to everybody involved in the process. Each person stamps the document with their *hanko*, or personal seal. Those who disagree will either not participate or place their *hanko* upside down, but either way, this lengthy process avoids open conflict at a meeting, which would cause people to lose face. In any one organisation, several *ringi* may be in circulation at once. [](https://www.countrynavigator.com/calendar-of-events/) ##### Chinese decision making style China, like Japan, is a collectivist culture. Confucianism teaches that individuals should maintain their place in the hierarchy to avoid chaos. Decision making is slow and deliberate; rushing things is the sign of a fool. Chinese management culture tends to be risk-averse, with a desire to get things right, hence the slow process. Decisions are influenced by the social structure and the concept of the good of the group. Age is associated with wisdom and experience and decisions are therefore usually made by the most senior members of a company, who tend to hold the power. ##### Arab decision making style Arab cultures are also, generally speaking, risk averse and hierarchical. Decisions are made from the top, often the following discussion with other stakeholders of equal seniority. Once a decision is made, is it not questioned. Honor, reputation and relationships are more important than speed or risk. Nepotism, or personal connections, plays a strong role in decision making as Arabs tend to do business with friends and family, not strangers. ###### WRITTEN BY SUE BRYANT Sue Bryant is an award-winning writer and editor specialising in global business culture and travel. With over three decades of experience under our belts, we’re experts in supporting global businesses successfully navigate their complex and unique challenges. [Let’s explore how we could help you.](https://www.countrynavigator.com/contact-us/) Sue Bryant is an award-winning editor and journalist with a deep expertise in travel and cross-cultural topics. As a contributor to Country Navigator, she brings her extensive knowledge in cruising, adventure travel, and global cultural insights to the platform. Sue has been a key voice in the cruise industry, serving as Cruise Editor for The Times and The Sunday Times, and is a published author of over 25 guidebooks. Her work is informed by a passion for experiential travel and an understanding of diverse cultures, making her contributions invaluable to those seeking to navigate the complexities of global business and travel., Cultural Influences in Decision Making Process, countrynavigator.com, 01jbs7pmmh8dyax9mp63tq92dp.