Bridging Worlds - by Eric Kamphues

Working across cultures for a number of years has taught me many lessons. To frame these insights, I often refer to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions—particularly Individualism vs. Collectivism, Power Distance, and Uncertainty Avoidance. Here’s how the three regions compare on those dimensions:

Individualism vs. Collectivism:

• Netherlands: High individualism—direct feedback and autonomy are expected.
• Japan: Strong collectivism—harmony and group consensus guide decisions.
• Taiwan: Collectivist tendencies balanced with entrepreneurial initiative.

Power Distance:

• Netherlands: Low—flat hierarchies encourage open discussion.
• Japan: High—respect for seniority shapes communication and approvals.
• Taiwan: Moderate—hierarchy exists but can be bridged through personal relationships.

Uncertainty Avoidance:

• Netherlands: Low—comfortable with ambiguity and fast decision cycles.
• Japan: High—prefers thorough planning and risk mitigation.
• Taiwan: Depends- Some companies follow the Japanese approach, while others have more similarities with China, which means very accepting of uncertainty.

For now, I’m highlighting some practical lessons learned — more to come later if there is interest:

1. Align on Communication Styles

• Hofstede link: High individualism in the Netherlands drives direct feedback; collectivism in Japan and Taiwan makes consensus and relationships key.
• Netherlands: Direct and concise keeps projects on track.
• Japan: Consensus-driven meetings ensure every voice is heard.
• Taiwan: Relationship-first dialogue accelerates decision-making.

My takeaway: Define communication norms up front—specify meeting formats, decision thresholds, and response timelines to ensure clarity across cultures. Be honest about your expectations and uncertainties, the other parties often feel the same.

2. Navigate and Resolve Conflicts

• Hofstede link: Low power distance in the Netherlands supports open group discussions; high power distance in Japan requires indirect, private approaches.
• Netherlands: Open, group discussions quickly surface issues and the team is motivated to address and resolve these quickly.
• Japan: Private, indirect conversations preserve harmony and face.
• Taiwan: Building on established personal connections helps ease difficult conversations.

My takeaway: Adapt your conflict-resolution style—choose between public forums, one-on-one meetings, or informal catch-ups.

3. Individualism & Responsibility Assumption

• Hofstede link: The Netherlands’ high individualism score drives personal initiative and clear ownership; Japan and Taiwan’s collectivism diffuses individual accountability.
• Netherlands: Engineers and managers propose solutions unasked and own execution end‑to‑end, expecting personal accountability.
• Japan/Taiwan: Decisions are seen as the group’s; individuals may hesitate to lead without full consensus to avoid personal blame and ensuring group support.

My takeaway: Clarify ownership roles up front (e.g., via a RACI matrix), and require a brief group endorsement step to blend Dutch initiative with Japanese/Taiwanese consensus.

Conclusion

Working across cultures isn’t about finding one “right” way. It’s about understanding the different rules we each play by. Whether it’s how we give feedback, resolve disagreements, or take ownership, cultural context matters. By staying aware of these dynamics and making space for alignment upfront, we can avoid misunderstandings and build stronger, more adaptive teams. As success in international collaboration isn’t just technical, it’s human.

- Eric Kamphues, CEO of IX Renewables