Bob de Jonge and his Thai associate, Chaiwat Soonvichai, are walking into a meeting in Bangkok.

Chaiwat asks Bob casually, "Do you have the latest marketing portfolio with you?"

Bob stops in his tracks and slaps his forehead. "Why on earth didn't you ask me that earlier? Now there's no time to go back and get it".

The two continue on in silence. Three months later Chaiwat leaves to work for Bob's main competitor.

East meets West

Have you ever stopped to think about what really matters in life? What the basic assumptions about life that direct our every action are?

According to American cultural anthropologists E. Hall, F. Kluckhohn and F. Strodtbeck, the world is divided (often radically) in its attitude towards destiny, time, relationships and hierarchy and context.

These aspects of daily life control everything we do, from how we greet each other to how we view planning, from safety issues to organisational culture.

Little wonder then, that if one is trying to transfer a management system from one part of the world to another it seldom delivers the desired result.

Nowhere on earth are the contrasts between one's orientation to destiny, time, relationships and hierarchy and context so great as between Western Europe and Asia. For the uninitiated, a brief summary:

Destiny

Western European business culture is oriented towards internal control: the ability to anticipate and prevent problems and difficulties through planning and processes (worst case scenarios figure heavily in European business planning).

Asian business culture, on the other hand, puts emphasis on external control, or destiny, resulting in more reactive management: planning, particularly in extensive detail, is viewed as counter-productive because one will only have to adjust the plans to suit the (ever-changing) reality.

In addition, Asians tend to emphasise the positive, and look at life and business from an optimistic perspective.

Consider the following quote from one of Britain's best-known industrialists, Sir John Harvey-Jones:

"Planning is an unnatural process; it is much more fun to do something."

"The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, rather than being preceded by a period of worry and depression."

Droll, but also revealing the popular Western European view that failing to plan will inevitably result in failure.

President Suharto of Indonesia once said, rather famously, that he, too, believed in development planning: "Yes, first we develop, then we plan".

Time

The world is divided into monochronic and polychronic cultures, according to anthropologist Edward Hall.

Monochronic people (in north-western Europe) see time as a measurable, quantifiable entity, something with real weight and value ("time is money").

The strongest characteristic of monochronic people is that they do one thing at a time, and hate to be interrupted, because life, and work, is oriented towards goals and results and not people.

Keeping a northern European waiting is viewed as insulting and a sign of disrespect.

Polychronic people on the other hand (the whole of Asia), see time as a general guideline, something without substance or structure.

Polychronic cultures love to do many things at once, and live for interruptions, because interruptions involve people and relationships are central to everything in life.

It is not possible to be late in a polychronic culture, since time has no value in itself.

A famous Asian saying sums up the difference quite nicely: "God made time and the Europeans made the clock".

Relationships and hierarchy

In Western European meritocracies, goals, tasks and results are of paramount importance; while people are usually interchangeable...it's not about whom you know, but what you know.

In Asia, however, relationships and people are vital to every activity.

It is crucial in Asian societies to know exactly with whom you are dealing, and to do your homework extensively on (future) business partners.

A practical example of how this works: if a German wishes to get investment advice, she will phone her bank, and it doesn't matter who provides the service.

If a Malaysian wishes the same, she will wait until her own personal contact at the bank is available.

Asians believe in 'management by subjective', that is, they will patiently wait for instructions and do not believe in challenging authority.

Only when a clear, informal, relationship has been established will they feel comfortable raising their own concerns and ideas with a superior.

In Western European business, the opposite is true: initiative and independent action must be shown at all times, a 'management by objective' approach. Failure to display these qualities is usually the end of one's career.

What does all this mean in the real world?

Most western European cultures are oriented towards what is said, rather than who is saying it, or what the circumstances are surrounding the discussion.

Asian culture places the accent on the opposite: what is said is of far less importance than who is bringing the message, and why.

Over-emphasising the content, rather than other characteristics, and vice-versa, has been the cause of many cross-cultural misunderstandings.

'Low-context' cultures, such as those in Western Europe, also believe in direct, "honest" communication, leaving little or nothing unsaid.

Asian businesspeople, in a 'high-context' culture, prefer to let the silences and unspoken messages reveal as much as the words themselves.

Criticism must be stated with great care because of the complex face and hierarchy issues that accompany every conversation.

As Edward Hall says, "One of the great communications challenges in life is to find the appropriate level of 'contexting' needed in each situation.

"Too much information leads people to feel they are being talked down to; too little information can mystify them or make them feel left out."

The explanation

Now back to Bob and Chaiwat: Chaiwat was only trying to be helpful, and with his "unfriendly" response, Bob set in motion the following chain of thought and events:

Chaiwat felt he had made a bad mistake in judgement: he did not, in fact, have a good, informal relationship with Bob.

Chaiwat took a considerable risk in making a comment to his boss that could be construed as criticism. Bob's response proved to Chaiwat that it is not possible to act without due regard to hierarchy and context.

For reasons inexplicable to his Thai colleague, Bob has made it very clear that the timing of the reminder was far more important than the reminder itself.

Based on this incident and the inherent loss of face involved, Chaiwat felt he had no option than to find a new employer.

Bob still hasn't the slightest idea what went wrong.