Hello from The GCC Legal Culture Review - subscriber edition.
You’ve likely experienced the Gulf version of this story:
A meeting is warm. Everyone is agreeable. You hear “yes, yes”, maybe even “inshallah.”
And then .. nothing moves.
Many international lawyers interpret this as delay, indecision, or (sometimes) bad faith.
Often, it’s none of those.
It’s a different decision architecture: GCC decision-making is less about the meeting and more about readiness.
And readiness is not binary.
This edition gives you a framework to diagnose readiness, reduce the “polite trap,” and move matters forward without cornering anyone.
1) The shift: from “agreement” to “readiness”
In many Western legal cultures, agreement is treated as a contract-like moment:
we agreed → now we execute.
In GCC practice, “agreement” in a meeting can be closer to:
we are socially comfortable → now we align internally.
That alignment is often invisible to external counsel, and it may require:
principal approval,
protector comfort,
narrative safety,
and a pathway that preserves dignity.
If you push for binary confirmation too early, you can accidentally create a choice your counterpart doesn’t want:
say “no” directly (awkward, face-threatening), or
say “yes” politely (and then slow-walk).
The smarter move is to diagnose where the decision really is.
2) The six levels of GCC “yes” (a readiness ladder)
Most advisors speak as if there are only two states: yes or no.
In practice, you’ll often see six readiness levels:
Level 1: Courtesy Comfort
“They like you. The meeting is positive.”
Signal: warmth, praise, vague reassurance.
Risk: you mistake this for approval.
Level 2: Principle Alignment
“The direction feels right.”
Signal: “In principle, yes.” “This makes sense.”
Reality: still reversible.
Level 3: Consent Pending
“We need internal consultation.”
Signal: “We will revert.” “We will study.”
Reality: the decision is outside the room.
Level 4: Narrative Formation
“We need the right story for leadership.”
Signal: questions about optics, precedent, stakeholder perception.
Reality: your job is to help craft the ‘why.’
Level 5: Ownership & Timing
“This is moving.”
Signal: names, dates, tasks assigned, internal mobilization.
Reality: the machine is turning.
Level 6: Decision Lock
“Approved.”
Signal: a principal says it, or a protector starts implementing without further persuasion.
Reality: execution begins.
Key point: Levels 1-3 can sound like “yes.” Only Levels 5-6 behave like yes.
3) Why “not yet” is often a form of respect (not resistance)
A subtle cultural truth: in many GCC contexts, a direct “no” is used sparingly, especially where relationships matter and the room must stay dignified.
So “not yet” can be the polite, face-preserving way of saying:
“We need to consult.”
“This creates internal exposure.”
“We’re not comfortable with the optics.”
“The principal hasn’t decided.”
Treating “not yet” as incompetence is a common foreign-lawyer error.
Treating it as alignment work is how you become useful.
4) The Consent Map: who must say “yes” for the file to move?
If you want to predict whether a “yes” will turn into action, map consent.
In many GCC matters, you need four permissions:
Principal consent: the ultimate decider (or their inner circle).
Protector consent: the person managing exposure
Process consent: procurement, approvals, board cadence, formalities.
Narrative consent: a story leadership can stand behind publicly and internally.
When a file stalls after a “positive meeting,” it’s usually because one of these is missing.
Your role as counsel/advisor is often to identify which one, without forcing anyone to say it bluntly.
5) The difference between ‘chasing’ and ‘equipping’ (and why it matters in the Gulf)
Many international lawyers follow up like this:
long recap,
implied agreement,
request for confirmation,
escalating urgency.
In GCC contexts, that can feel like pressure without giving the client a safe path.
Try a follow-up that equips internal alignment:
The “equipping follow-up” (short template)
Subject: As discussed, two paths + what’s needed for internal sign-off
Option A (safer): one line, and why it’s easiest to defend internally.
Option B (faster): one line, and the exposure it creates.
What’s needed internally: “To make this final, do you need alignment from [X] or comfort on [Y]?”
Next step: one clear action with a date.
You’re not begging for approval. You’re helping them win internally.
6) The one-sentence narrative test (how to prevent the polite trap in the room)
Before the meeting ends, ask a question that reveals whether you have real alignment:
“If you had to brief this to [Chair/Board/Principal] in one sentence, what would you say?”
If their sentence is vague, you are not at Level 5 yet.
If their sentence is clear, action-oriented, and defensible, you are.
If it doesn’t match your intended message, you can recalibrate gently:
“Exactly, and the reason we recommend Option B is that it protects you on [X] while still achieving [Y].”
That is how you shape the internal story before it travels.
One question
What is the topic, the burning question, or the unclear pattern you would like me to write about in the next issues? Help me shape this newsletter to what best serves you to succeed in the GCC.
Warm regards,
Taqua Malik
Editor, The GCC Legal Culture Review
P.S. If you want the daily micro-calibration - short, sharp, native insights (always under a minute) - subscribe to The Souk Secrets.
Until next week,