Monday’s Edition: The Hidden Motivators Behind International Conflict Part 2

The 8 political drivers

The seating chart at a diplomatic dinner is never an accident. Neither is the toast, whether you’re served first or last, if the fish arrives whole or filleted, or if the conversation stays on the weather or slides toward business before dessert.

Somewhere, probably right now, an international negotiation is collapsing over exactly this kind of thing. An American envoy showed up with spreadsheets and junior analysts, expecting the data to speak for itself. The other delegation sent a deputy minister with thirty years in government, expecting his title to command the room. Both sides left convinced the other wasn’t serious.

They were both serious, but they were running different software. Coming from different cultural perspectives.

Free subscribers get daily cultural briefings. Paid subscribers get full access to deep dives, Saturday Core Briefs, and priority replies. Consider upgrading if you want the whole picture.

Last week covered the structural questions: individual versus collective, how much hierarchy, how many rules, and how far ahead to plan. This week is about how countries actually talk to each other. Or fail to.

Four dimensions determine whether communication lands or crashes. Whether a signed contract means “we’re done” or “we’re starting.” Whether emotional restraint signals professionalism or contempt. Whether sending your best expert honors your counterpart or is indifferent to them.

First: Do rules apply the same way to everyone, or does context matter?

Universalistic cultures, the U.S., Germany, and the Netherlands, treat rules as rules. A contract means what it says. Personal relationships don’t modify legal obligations. You wouldn’t give your brother a government contract just because he’s your brother. That’s corruption.

Particularistic cultures, China, Russia, and most of Latin America, treat rules as guidelines shaped by relationship and circumstance. Of course, you’d help your brother. That’s loyalty. The contract is a framework. The relationship is what matters.

When these two systems sign the same document, they’re agreeing to different things. One side thinks they bought a car. The other side thinks they started dating.

The second dimension is whether status is earned or assigned.

Achievement cultures believe you prove yourself through results. Send your smartest person to the negotiation, regardless of title. Ascription cultures believe status comes from position, age, credentials, or family. Send someone whose rank matches the importance of the discussion.

The American who shows up with a 28-year-old wunderkind is saying “we sent our best.” The Japanese delegation receiving them hears, “You’re not worth sending a senior person.” Nobody’s wrong, but everybody’s offended.

Third: Should emotions be expressed or controlled?

Neutral cultures, Germany, Japan, and the UK, keep it cool. Facts are facts. Feelings stay internal. Affective cultures, Italy, Spain, and Latin America, express emotions openly and expect the same in return. The Italian delegate who gets animated isn’t being unprofessional, he’s being Italian. The British delegate who stays expressionless isn’t being cold, she’s being British. But each side reads the other’s cultural perspective as a character flaw.

Fourth: Do you control your environment, or adapt to it?

Internal direction cultures, the U.S., the UK, and Israel, set goals and bulldoze toward them. That’s leadership. External direction cultures, China, Russia, and much of East Asia, read conditions and adjust course. That’s wisdom. One side wants fixed commitments. The other wants flexible frameworks. The gap looks like bad faith. It’s actually different answers to whether humans master circumstances or work with them.

Hornby’s work maps these cultural patterns onto individual psychology, showing how they manifest in personal behavior. The diplomat who can’t read the room isn’t clueless, they’re using their cultural perspective in foreign territory.

Both sides usually want the same outcome. They fail not because they disagree on goals but because they disagree, without knowing it, on how to communicate, what status means, and what a signed document even is.

Nobody teaches this. Not really. We send people into rooms full of alien assumptions and expect good intentions to bridge the gap. Good intentions are necessary, but they are not sufficient.

So the dinner ends. The toasts are made. Everyone flies home thinking they understood each other.

They didn’t. They rarely do.

Cultural Perspective is reader-supported. Free subscribers get daily briefings. Paid subscribers get access to core briefs and monthly Q&As. Consider upgrading if you want the whole picture and to support my work.