8. Participation

Participation will achieved by different styles of contribution depending as much on people's individual personalities as on their nationality. The following are extremely stereotypical and are examples of different styles that any participant could adopt.

German style is to be well prepared and to contribute only when they feel well qualified to do so and when they have something useful to say. They will not expect to be interrupted or immediately contradicted and regard their prepared positions as incontrovertible.

French contributions tend to be adversarial, dogmatic, and models of rationality. They expect their own and others' contributions to fit in to an overall schema or theory. They expect to be contradicted and to win the argument by logic and assertion.

Italian contributions tend to be innovative, complex, creative and usually stimulating. They are embellished with definitions, caveats, analogies, allusions and asides, and in the opinion of the rigorously pragmatic not always relevant.

British contributions tend to be pragmatic and realistic. They may not always be supported with hard fact, offering opinion and assertion for discussion rather than proposals for adoption or imposition. Their predilection for humour may relieve tense or tedious moments, but it can also be regarded as trivialising. They are the least likely to lose interest or temper.

The Dutch have a similar approach to the British in terms of seeking a common resolution instead of imposing one, preferring the practical to the theoretical and using humour to defuse conflict and tedium. Their contribution will be brutally frank.

Spanish tend not to risk embarrassment or discomfiture by saying anything that might be criticised for any reason, ranging from a poor command of the language spoken to the actual content. This can be mistaken for aloofness. They will participate in emphatic and spirited debate as long as they feel on firm ground.

9. Consensus

There is a difference between passive consensus, meaning that the participants consent to a course of .notion, and active consensus, meaning that they are fully committed to it. Those towards the organic end of the organisation dimension may give their assent to a decision but will not abide by it. Those towards the systematic end will only assent to what they feel committed to carrying out.

Those towards the group end of the leadership dimension will look for a genuine consensus based on a synthesis of views. Those towards the individual end will seek consensus bas d on the adoption of the best idea, preferably their own.

The depth of agreement primarily depends, of course, not on cultural difference but on the underlying business interests that each of the participants represents and how much authority they have to commit them. This may not always be clear. In any event, it is wise to aim for complete and active consensus. Majority decisions should be avoided and formal voting postponed until the very last. Consensus-oriented participants should be prepared for apparently irreconcilable positions to be hotly contested by the others before coming together quickly at the end.