One colleague believes honesty is respectful. Another believes respect requires diplomacy. Each is trying to communicate well. Each leaves the conversation questioning the other’s character.
Yet listeners can interpret the first as honest and efficient—or blunt and disrespectful. The second can sound thoughtful and diplomatic—or vague and evasive. Cross-cultural communication becomes difficult when we judge the person before interpreting the style.
Directness is not automatically aggression. Indirectness is not automatically dishonesty. Both can be ways of showing respect, depending on what a person has learned about relationships, hierarchy and the purpose of conversation.
Misunderstandings intensify when intention is treated as the only thing that matters. “I was only being honest” does not erase the effect of a harsh delivery. But impact alone does not tell us everything either. A listener’s interpretation is shaped by expectations as well as by the words spoken.
A productive response separates three questions. What was the speaker trying to accomplish? How was the message delivered? What effect did it have on the work or relationship? This creates room for accountability without rushing to a character judgment.
Instead of telling a colleague, “You are too aggressive,” describe the moment: “When the proposal was dismissed before the explanation was finished, the discussion stopped. I need concerns to be stated in a way that allows the person to respond.”
Instead of saying, “You need to be more assertive,” make the need specific: “When you see a risk, please name it clearly in the meeting so we can consider it before deciding.”
Teams can establish shared communication agreements. How will disagreement be signalled? When is a private conversation preferable? Does silence mean consent, or will the chair confirm decisions explicitly? How will urgent feedback differ from developmental feedback?
The aim is not to eliminate friction. Diverse teams will sometimes misread one another. The essential skill is repair: ask what was meant, explain what was heard, clarify the effect and agree on what would work better next time.
When colleagues can discuss communication itself, difference becomes less mysterious. They stop deciding that an unfamiliar style reveals a bad attitude and start building a language for working well together.
Continue learning
Cross-Cultural Inclusion at Work: Understanding, Communication and Belonging
Explore deeper explanations, practical tools and guided reflection in this Inclusion and Co. premium guide.
Explore the guide