Appendix B: Global Influence Research
The author mentions that he has been involved in a series of research projects over the past ten years that seeks to understand the manner in which influence is practiced across an array of cultures, which has spanned over 45 countries.
Given that business is now global and that contact with people in other cultures is commonplace, understanding the differences in the way in which people of different cultures use and respond to influence is of increasing importance - it is not the occasional business trip to a foreign country, but email, telephone calls, and teleconferences that take place every day.
Multiculturalism poses a significant problem: people tend to leverage the methods of influence that work on themselves and others of the same culture, and doing so with people of a different culture can be inefficient, ineffective, or even disastrous. You cannot rely on your intuition or experience within your own culture, but must be attentive to the conventions and beliefs of the people whom you are trying to influence.
Moreover the way in which they attempt to influence you will be different to the ways in which you are accustomed. You may not know how to react, or even recognize when a reaction is expected or necessary. You may believe that an agreement has been made when the other party believes it has not, or assume that you have not made a commitment when the other party believes that you have.
(EN: What follows is basically a matrix of the ten ethical influence techniques listed in the first appendix, then lists of countries in which they are common or unusual, effective or ineffective. It's good detail but nothing that can be summarized.)
Special attention is given to the "dark side" technique of avoidance, as this is a significant point of misunderstanding between cultures, particularly between east and west. Eastern cultures tend to be more collectivistic and place higher values on relationship maintenance, and therefore tend to avoid unpleasant conversations or giving the impression of being unwilling to cooperate, even when they have no intention of cooperating. Their manner of speech is more indirect and great emphasis is put on "saving face" by avoiding and sometimes misrepresenting unpleasant or embarrassing matters. In some cultures, avoidance is even encouraged and is considered to be good manners.
It's interesting to note that the same thing occurs in some of the former Soviet countries, in which being direct in communicating or refusing orders could have very negative consequences: instead of refusing a ridiculous order, people in these countries simply ignore it, pretend not to understand, pretend to be busy with orders from an even higher authority, etc. These practices are common even in the west, inside of toxic organizations with autocratic and/or unethical leaders.