Cultural Judgment

Making sound decisions in culturally complex business situations.

Do We Really Need Another Concept?

Over the past several decades, intercultural research and practice have produced a large variety of different ideas, theories, and models in the field of intercultural communication. We speak of intercultural competence, Cultural Intelligence, global competence, diversity competence, transculturality, pluriculturalism, hybridity, and hyper-diversity. Many of these approaches have made important contributions. They have helped us understand cultural differences more carefully, prepare people for communication and collaboration in multi-cultural enveronments, and question simplistic assumptions about culture.

So why introduce another concept?

A new concept is useful only if it helps us describe and address a problem that existing approaches do not sufficiently capture. Otherwise, we are simply giving a new name to something we already know.

Cultural Judgment must meet the same test.

The problem does not necessarily begin when people know too little about other cultures. Executives and professionals who work internationally may know a great deal about hierarchy, communication styles, relationship orientation, trust, or decision-making and still find themselves uncertain about what to do in a particular situation.

The question that ultimately matters

What does this knowledge mean in this particular situation, with these people, under these conditions – and what should follow from it?

Cultural models and theories provide orientation and sharpen our perception. They can make differences and tensions visible and help explain why certain expectations or behaviors may be more likely in one context than another. But a model cannot judge the concrete situation for us. Theory can help us develop hypotheses and possible explanations. The assessment of the situation – and responsibility for the action that follows – remains with the person who has to act.

Knowing that hierarchy matters in a particular social or organizational context, for example, does not tell a leader whether, in this particular moment, to provide stronger direction, consult others, wait, or deliberately encourage initiative.

Knowing that relationships matter in business does not tell us how much relationship-building a particular situation actually requires.

And knowing that communication in some cultures tends to be more indirect does not tell us when restraint is appropriate and when persistency becomes necessary.

Beside the different cultural styles, there is another difficulty: Not everything that happens between people from different cultural backgrounds is therefore caused by culture.

People do not act exclusively as representatives of cultural categories. They also act as executives, employees, clients, experts, or decision-makers. Personality, biography, generation, organization, industry, power relations, interests, and the history of a particular relationship can all influence what happens in a situation.

Intercultural competence therefore involves more than recognizing cultural influences. It also requires knowing when not to make culture the primary explanation.

This Critique Is Not New

The criticism of explaining behavior primarily through culture is not new. Cultural psychology has long challenged the idea that people can be understood simply as representatives of national or cultural categories.

The CuPS approach – Culture × Person × Situation – developed by Angela Leung and Dov Cohen (2011) is one example. It considers culture, individual differences, and the particular situation together rather than reducing behavior to any one of them. People always act within a cultural context, but they are not simply products of that context.

This critique is well established. Over the years, different approaches have challenged the idea of cultures as clearly bounded entities and questioned the assumption that individuals can be understood primarily through cultural categories. They have drawn attention to individual differences, multiple cultural influences, changing contexts, and the fluidity of cultural boundaries.

These approaches address an important limitation of classical cultural models. Yet the practical impact of this critique remains limited. It is part of our human nature that we have an understandable need for orientation, control of the environment, and a certain degree of predictability.

Especially in unfamiliar intercultural situations, clear explanations are attractive because they provide orientation and fulfil the need for control. At the same time, they can create a degree of certainty that the actual complexity of the situation does not justify. Classical cultural concepts often provide this clarity more readily than approaches that emphasize ambiguity, fluidity, and less clearly defined cultural boundaries.

This may partly explain why questions such as “How do the Japanese think?”, “How do you negotiate with Arabs?”, or “What are the most important taboos in Saudi Arabia?” continue to occupy a significant part of the market for intercultural training and advice.

There is certainly no shortage of information about cultural differences, behavioral rules, dos and don’ts, and country-specific characteristics.

Yet difficult intercultural situations have not disappeared despite this abundance of knowledge.

A further development has therefore been to shift attention from knowledge about culture toward the ability to adapt one’s own behavior. Andy Molinsky’s concept of Cultural Dexterity (2013) is an important example. Its focus is not simply on knowing about cultural differences, but on developing the ability to adjust one’s behavior to unfamiliar cultural demands without losing one’s sense of authenticity.

Even this, however, leaves an important question unresolved: How do we judge which interpretation of a situation is plausible, what kind of adaptation is actually appropriate, and when adaptation may not be the right response at all?

The Ambiguity of Concrete Situations

The difficulty becomes more visible when we move from cultural models to concrete situations.

In international business, the same observable behavior can have several plausible meanings. Imagine, for example, that a business partner responds positively to a proposal during a meeting.

What does that positive response mean?

It may indicate genuine agreement. But it may also express politeness, signal interest without commitment, protect the relationship, or avoid open disagreement. The person may not have the authority to make the decision. They may want to consult others first, gain time, keep options open, or avoid closing the conversation prematurely.

The response may also have little to do with culture. Personality, previous experience, organizational role, power relations, the history of the relationship, or the particular circumstances of the meeting may be equally important.

Several of these explanations may even be true at the same time.

The observable behavior remains the same. Its meaning, however, may arise from cultural, personal, relational, organizational, situational, or strategic factors.

This is precisely what makes intercultural situations difficult to interpret. We observe behavior, but we do not directly observe the intentions, expectations, constraints, or considerations behind it.

Cultural knowledge can help us generate plausible explanations. Knowing something about hierarchy, indirect communication, relationship orientation, or decision-making processes may prevent us from interpreting a positive response too quickly as a firm commitment.

But cultural knowledge cannot tell us with certainty which explanation applies in this particular case.

The challenge is therefore not simply to know more about culture. It is to deal with multiple plausible interpretations without turning one of them prematurely into certainty.

This engagement with ambiguity is not new either. In organizational research, Sensemaking, particularly associated with Karl Weick (1995), examines how people make sense of situations when information is incomplete, contradictory, or ambiguous.

People do not simply respond to an objectively given situation. Rather, through their actions and the retrospective interpretation of observations, experiences, and available information, they develop a plausible understanding of what is happening. In doing so, they are not merely interpreting reality from the outside; their actions also contribute to shaping the reality they subsequently try to understand.

Sensemaking therefore draws attention to an important point: in complex situations, people often cannot first establish with certainty what a situation “really means” and only then decide how to act. Interpretation and action develop in relation to one another.

This is especially relevant in intercultural situations. We do not simply observe behavior and discover its cultural meaning. We construct interpretations from what we observe, what we already know, what we expect, what others tell us, and what happens as the interaction continues.

Coming to a grounded interpretation, however, does not fully resolve the problem of how to act.

Ambiguity concerns not only the question of how a situation can be understood, but also the question of what should follow from that interpretation.

A leader may ask for a clearer answer, decide to wait, invest further in the relationship, or involve other decision-makers. These options are not arbitrary, nor are they equally appropriate. They can be assessed in terms of which interpretation of the situation appears most plausible, what objectives are being pursued, which interests and expectations matter to those involved, and what consequences may follow from each course of action.

A direct question, for example, may create clarity but may also be perceived as inappropriate pressure. Waiting may protect the relationship and allow additional information to emerge, but it may also cost valuable time or be interpreted as a lack of decisiveness. Involving a more senior decision-maker may accelerate the process, while at the same time undermining the authority or standing of the person with whom the conversation has been conducted.

CULTURAL JUDGMENT

Cultural Judgment therefore does not mean that everything depends on context and that every course of action is equally valid. It means systematically assessing the available evidence, weighing possible consequences, and making a reasoned decision under conditions of limited certainty.

Directness may be appropriate, but so may sensitivity. Clear rules may be necessary, while another situation may require flexibility. Participation may be the right leadership decision in one context, while under different conditions a clear hierarchical decision may be required. Global standards may be indispensable, while their effective implementation may simultaneously require adaptation to local realities.

It is therefore not enough to interpret a situation as carefully and comprehensively as possible. We must also judge which of the available courses of action is appropriate and defensible under the given conditions.

From Interpretation to Judgment

At this point, Cultural Judgment touches on a much older question. Aristotle’s concept of phronesis, or practical wisdom, already addresses the capacity to judge and act appropriately in concrete situations. General knowledge alone is insufficient because practical situations contain particularities that cannot be fully anticipated or resolved by general rules.

Cultural Judgment therefore does not claim to reinvent practical judgment. Rather, it applies this idea to a specific challenge of international and intercultural collaboration.

How do professionals balance organizational policies, stakeholder relationships, and personal values to arrive at a reasoned judgment?

Cultural Judgment applies this idea of practical judgment to culturally complex situations. What matters is the ability to assess which factors are relevant in a particular situation, how much weight they should be given, what courses of action they suggest, and what consequences those actions may have.

Judging and Acting Under Uncertainty

Cultural Judgment might initially sound as though it promises certainty about the right course of action. What it describes, however, is something different.

Complex intercultural situations often cannot be reduced to a single clear rule. Several plausible interpretations may coexist. Relevant information may be missing. Different expectations may be equally legitimate and yet contradict one another. And sometimes it becomes clear only as a situation unfolds whether a decision was appropriate.

Cultural Judgment therefore does not mean eliminating uncertainty. It means remaining capable of judgment and action under conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity. It starts from the assumption that not every situation has one correct answer waiting to be discovered or derived from a cultural model.

A reasoned decision may later prove insufficient because new information emerges or because the response of others calls the original interpretation into question. Judgment therefore also involves observing the effects of our own actions and being prepared to reassess our initial understanding.

Cultural Judgment, in this sense, is not a state that can be achieved once and for all. It is an ongoing process of observation, interpretation, judgment, action, and reassessment.

What Do We Mean by Cultural Judgment?

DEFINITION

Cultural Judgment is the ability to read a concrete situation within its cultural, social, and organizational context, recognize different interpretations, expectations, and logics of action, weigh their relevance and possible consequences, and arrive at a reasoned and viable decision even under conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty.

Cultural knowledge remains important. It is not, however, treated as a ready-made prescription for action, but as one source of information among several. Equally relevant may be the people involved, their roles and interests, power relations, organizational conditions, existing relationships, and the specific objectives of the situation.

The decisive ability, therefore, is not to know as many cultural rules as possible. It is the ability to judge which factors are relevant in a particular situation, how much weight they should be given, how they relate to one another, and what follows from them for one’s own actions.

The focus of Cultural Judgment, therefore, is not on acquiring more knowledge about culture, but on the quality of judgment in culturally complex situations.

Literature and Theoretical Foundations

The concept of Cultural Judgment draws on several established perspectives from cultural psychology, organizational research, behavioral adaptation, and practical philosophy.

Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, particularly Book VI on phronesis (practical wisdom).

Leung, A. K.-Y. & Cohen, D. (2011): Within- and Between-Culture Variation: Individual Differences and the Cultural Logics of Honor, Face, and Dignity Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 507–526.

Molinsky, A. (2013): Global Dexterity: How to Adapt Your Behavior Across Cultures without Losing Yourself in the Process. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Weick, K. E. (1995): Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

IN PRACTICE

Cultural Judgment in Practice

Cultural Judgment becomes relevant where cultural complexity influences concrete decisions, collaboration, and leadership. We connect this approach with different forms of practical support.