Understanding Cultural Differences in Customer Service

Cross-Border Multi-Cultural UX is one of my biggest passions. After consulting organizations in 50+ countries, I began to collect examples of how Hofstede's 6 Cultural Dimensions impact cross-cultural UX: 1. Power Distance Index → Cultural interpretation of institutions Though vastly different regions, users in Australia and Qatar share respect for government institutions. These countries emphasize citizens’ responsibilities over their preferences, resulting in more disciplined behavior on government websites. In Australia, you can vote online but will get fined if you don’t vote. 2. Individualism vs. Collectivism → Cultural interpretation of self-image Western countries tend to have an individualistic emphasis on “I.” In contrast, there’s a collective “we” focus in Eastern countries. For example, our UX work for a Middle Eastern CPG brand catered to female buyers who typically shop for their families. Consumers prioritized their families’ individual needs over collective needs, building shopping lists organized by family members. 3. Masculinity vs. Femininity → Cultural interpretation of gender norms Similarly, masculine and feminine perceptions and motivations differ between Western and more traditional Eastern cultures. We once worked with a Western designer who almost chose an image depicting a woman with tattoos wearing short sleeves for a client in the Middle East. This would have been perfectly fine in many regions but perceived as inappropriate there. For our work in seven states of the Persian Gulf, we had to go as far as to tailor keffiyeh (traditional men's headdress) on pictures for each region. 4. Uncertainty Avoidance Index → Cultural interpretation of security Trust and security are paramount in Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Japan, and Germany. Germans have high uncertainty avoidance and seek multiple reassurances about security, privacy, and return policies on e-commerce sites. The opposite is true in Swedish and Dutch users. The fewer rules, the better. “I will deal with the problem if and when the problem arises” is the typical approach. 5. Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation → Cultural interpretation of gratification Eastern cultures are open to delayed gratification. Users in China and South Korea tolerate lengthy forms and high interaction costs if it leads to better long-term outcomes. Americans, however, expect instant gratification and would be easily annoyed by what’s considered a norm in China. 6. Indulgence vs. Restraint → Cultural interpretation of needs and preferences Sometimes excess is considered a good experience. I liken this to Banchan's side dishes in South Korea and the bento box in Japan. “The more, the better” is often followed for UX in Asia (despite otherwise low indulgence preferences). The bento box has even become a design trend for organizing content of different types and “flavors”! Western users are overwhelmed by this type of density in UX. Their golden rule? Less is more.

I share the following as an open reminder to...me. I hope it proves helpful to you as well. "Harmony is when words connect instead of collide" Your US directness with your LatAM teams is often being misread as rudeness and yet, it is possible to adapt without losing clarity. What you see as "cutting to the chase," your LatAm team might experience as jarring abruptness. After observing dozens of cross-cultural teams, I've noticed a pattern: The very communication style that US leaders prize for its efficiency often creates unexpected friction with LatAm colleagues. Here's what's happening beneath the surface: 🤝 Relationship context matters first In many LatAm cultures, establishing connection before diving into tasks isn't optional—it's foundational 🎭 Direct feedback feels like public shaming What US teams view as "straightforward feedback" can feel like deliberate humiliation when cultural context is missing 📝 "Just the facts" communication removes essential social cues Purely transactional exchanges strip away the relationship signals LatAm professionals use to interpret meaning I recently watched a US tech leader transform her team interactions with simple adjustments: What she changed: 👋 Added 2-3 minutes of genuine connection at the start of every interaction. Replaced "That won't work because..." with "I see your thinking, and I'm wondering about..." 📱 Moved critical feedback to voice/video rather than text-only channels (although written praise is valued even higher than personal delivery) 🌉 Created explicit team agreements about communication preferences What happened: 💡 Misunderstandings decreased dramatically 🚀 Implementation speed actually increased 🗣️ LatAm team participation in discussions grew substantially 🌐 Innovation improved as diverse perspectives emerged 💡 The key insight? You don't need to abandon directness—just sandwich it between connection moments. Question for leaders: What small adjustments to your communication style might help your cross-cultural teams interpret your intent more accurately? #GlobalTeams #Leadership #CrossCulturalCommunication #RemoteWork #LatAm

How do you manage cross-cultural consulting? 🌏 As a native New Yorker, I come from a culture of low-context communication. That means I'm direct and expect you to say what you're thinking. I value clear feedback and an orientation to the work. However, I've been working in high-context cultures (e.g. the Middle East and US Midwest) where much is implied, and reading between the lines is a needed skill. Also, relationships are valued over work. I've learned that managing this difference is my responsibility as the consultant, and that understanding my Unique Cultural Lens (thank you Enrique J. Zaldivar) -- the aspects of my identity, New Yorker and beyond -- that make me value low context helps me stretch to meet my high-context clients. I've also found that being explicit about our differences allows room to clear up miscommunications, heal offenses (low context can often be quite grating to high context folks), and focus on both relationships and tasks equally. Do you work across cultures? How do you manage it?

In my prior job, I had a staff person that some folks found difficult to communicate with. I encouraged them to consider the cultural differences between themselves and the staff person. Communication styles vary widely across cultures. What might seem clear, direct, and respectful to one person could come across as unclear, indirect, or even blunt to another. It’s crucial to recognize that what’s "clear to you" might not be "clear to them" due to these differing cultural norms. When faced with communication challenges, I encouraged my team to consider a few things: Observe Patterns: Notice if the communication style is consistent with others from the same cultural background. Ask Open-Ended Questions: Engage in a conversation about communication preferences to better understand where the other person is coming from. Self-Reflect: Consider your own cultural biases and how they might influence your perception of others' communication styles. By taking these steps, we not only improve our communication but also strengthen our team dynamics. Instead of viewing these challenges as obstacles, we should see them as opportunities to learn, grow, and enhance our cultural competence. Creating an environment where we acknowledge and respect cultural diversity can significantly improve collaboration and foster a more inclusive workplace. Effective communication isn’t one-size-fits-all. Let’s embrace the richness that cultural differences bring to our teams and learn from each other. #Leadership #DiversityAndInclusion #CulturalCompetence #Teamwork

What the Client Says vs What the Engineer Hears ⭕The Cultural Map of Misunderstanding: Offshore Edition😀⭕ Offshoring isn’t just about code, cost, or time zones. It’s about navigating a map where cultures communicate on very different frequencies. If you’ve ever worked across continents, you know this: What a client says and what the team hears are often two completely different movies… playing side by side. Here’s how it usually plays out — through the lens of The Culture Map: ⭕ Client says: “Good job.” -- Low-context, direct culture: “You did what I expected. Let’s move on.” ++ Engineer hears: “They’re impressed! Promotion must be near!” ⭕ Client says: “Interesting…” --Indirect negative feedback (common in US/UK): “I disagree, but I’m being polite.” ++ Engineer hears: “This is innovative. They loved it!” ⭕ Client says: “Let’s circle back.” -- Diplomatic deferral: “This isn’t a priority. Likely won’t revisit.” ++ Engineer hears: “They’re reviewing. Better prep again.” ⭕ Client says: “Let’s take this offline.” -- Conflict-avoidant cue: “This is uncomfortable. Let’s redirect.” ++ Engineer hears: “Private strategy discussion coming!” ⭕ Client says: “Thanks for the input.” -- Dismissal masked as politeness: “Noted, but we’re not changing course.” ++ Engineer hears: “They value my insight!” The result? Mismatched expectations. Missed delivery cues. And a trail of emotional misalignment that no project tracker will flag. Erin Meyer reminds us: “Cultural misunderstandings are not about behavior—they're about perception of behavior.” And in global IT delivery, this isn’t a soft skill. It’s a core leadership skill. So next time you're on a cross-border call and someone says “Let’s revisit,” ask yourself: Was it a calendar invite… or a gentle shutdown? What was said… vs what was meant… vs what was understood? That’s where real trust begins. #TheCultureMap #CrossCulturalLeadership #GlobalDelivery #ClientCommunication #OffshoringDecoded #TrustWithoutTranslation #ErinMeyers #ConnectTheDots #A3logicsVoice

📢 #DigitalituMPodcast - Episode 11 Highlights: Navigating Service Expectations Across the Atlantic 🌍 In our latest episode, Matthias Koehler and I delve into the vital role speed plays in service and after-sales, especially when bridging cultural differences between the U.S. and Europe. 💬 Key Insight from the Conversation: In the U.S., immediate responsiveness is expected. Clients value knowing their inquiry is acknowledged and addressed, even if the resolution takes time. Matthias Koehler emphasized this, noting how crucial a simple acknowledgment can be: "Give feedback within 12–24 hours. Even just saying, ‘I’ve received your email and am working on it,’ goes a long way in building trust." I shared my observation: "The speed of doing things in the U.S. is so much faster than in Germany. When American clients send an email, they expect an acknowledgment almost immediately. This is where many European companies miss the mark, causing unnecessary friction." 🎯 Why This Matters: In today’s competitive landscape, clients need assurance that their concerns are not lost in translation—or across time zones. This expectation isn’t just cultural; it’s a cornerstone of excellent service. 💡 The Solution? A U.S.-based service entity that can react to client requests immediately, ensuring prompt acknowledgment and action. This approach builds trust, reduces friction, and promptly solves problems. United Automation Hub (UAH) perfectly embodies this concept. UAH offers local service competence through a shared service agreement, enabling quick responses and solutions for clients. This agile model ensures clients feel heard, valued, and supported even if the OEM has headquarters on another continent! 🔗 Listen to the full episode to explore how cultural differences impact service expectations and how companies can adapt to excel: https://lnkd.in/gxTXZT5W How does your company ensure speedy service in a global market? Let’s discuss this in the comments! 👇