The conventional wisdom says that crossborder M&A transactions run into trouble because of cultural differences. All sorts of surveys and studies corroborate this view.

One survey that caught my eye, the Private Global Transaction Survey, was done in 2007 by accountancy Grant Thornton, the Association for Corporate Growth, and Eureka Private Equity. In Grant Thornton’s survey report, Bridging the global crossborder transaction gap, respondents (most of whom were from the USA) were asked what were the biggest barriers to crossborder transactions.

The top response? Cultural issues. Among the other responses, the regulatory environment and the legal environment followed cultural issues closely, trailed by IP protection and due diligence.

Of course, cultural difference exists, and it matters to the implementation and success of transborder deals. But it’s often overstated and misunderstood.

Cultural difference is overstated in two ways.

First, it seems to swamp or overpower other issues. Can business culture—bowing and business cards—really pose more of a challenge to a deal than regulatory or legal differences? Cultural difference seems to act as a trump card that overpowers any other hand.

Second, cultural difference is a sort of residual category. It is not technical. It can be almost anything. And you can be more forgiving of a cultural difference compared to, for example, differences in IP protection, because firsthand experience is the main source of information on cultural difference. For some firms, it’s worth asking whether cultural difference might be a means to explain away an unfortunate deal, without having to cast blame.

Cultural difference is misunderstood because it is hard to measure. If only everyday business culture—bowing and business cards—were the cause of the problem, we’d expect that these deals would never be completed, the boorish outsiders being turned away, or turned down. If they really matter, the operative cultural differences must not be immediately apparent, for example through due diligence. They’re too subtle or too deep to stand out. But here’s the paradox: as much as firms seem to be blind to cultural differences before making a deal, they are certain of their existence and paramount importance when a deal goes sour.