Culture shapes effective inquiry

To acquire an answer to your questions, you must change the question to fit the culture.

Americans want “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (Origin of the Oath)”. Avoidance of direct answers is not the virtue of those who care for the honor of others-it’s an obstruction of justice. Therefore, each American learns to ask direct questions if they want direct answers, and those who won’t answer in the way we expect are suspect of having something to hide. When this tactic is taken in other cultures, however, direct answers may get you further, not closer, to the truth.

Livermore gives an example of the need to fit your question to the culture. He was in Liberia to investigate a partnership and had heard rumors that the director of the organization was corrupt. With only a few days to uncover the truth and an American’s perspective, he directly questioned those close to the director. The harder he pressed for an answer, the less forthcoming his audience was. To them it was unthinkable to shame their leader, least of all to a foreigner. Only after Livermore abandoned this line of questioning and couch his questions in a way that they could be indirectly answered did you gain insight into people’s thoughts ((Livermore, pg. 114-115)).

Livermore’s life revolves around cultural intelligence, and he still makes cultural blunders. Most business deals never receive the type of retrospective Livermore gives to his Liberia trip. Had it been a typical business trip, no red flags would have been thrown and, when the truth about the director’s character surfaced, the business would accuse the university of a cover-up. Likewise, honest opportunities are lost when direct questions imply the other party is deceitful or when detailed discussions only occur after both parties have a strong relationship.

On a call today I listened to two co-workers argue about a highly technical problem. The first, a Russian we’ll call Ole, was adamant about explaining the details of their technical problem. The other, a Mid-Western American we’ll call Joe, assumed I already knew how the system worked and wanted me to find a fix. Ole repeatedly stated that the system worked differently than Joe thought, while Joe disdained Ole’s need to explain the problem in detail. When Ole finally had a chance to explain his perspective, his answer matched exactly with what Joe had summarized in a couple sentences. Even though they both knew what the problem was and were able to explain it, they could not understand the other person’s explanation and distrusted the other’s approach. Had Joe not asked Ole directly whether he knew what he was doing, and had Ole not responded with exaggerated answers, the entire conversation would have been over in fifteen minutes instead of forty-five. If the issue had been more pressing, it’s likely no answer would have been found as both parties would have ceased to cooperate.

References