Rudeness or Efficiency?
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
When Cultural Communication Style Determines the Direction of a Project
In today’s global teams, speaking the same language doesn’t guarantee understanding. An online meeting in English or Spanish can be full of misunderstandings—not because of the words themselves, but because of how and when they are said. What one culture considers transparency, another may interpret as rudeness.
A recent client case illustrates this perfectly.
The Clash in the Meeting
Andrés, a Costa Rican team leader, joins a virtual meeting with colleagues from the United States and the Netherlands. After a brief greeting, the Dutch product manager jumps in and, without hesitation, addresses the most sensitive issues: delays, questionable decisions, and concerns about the strategy. His comments are blunt and direct:
“Why did you make that decision?”
“This is delaying the timeline.”
“I don’t see how that process can be acceptable.”
To Andrés and his team, this felt disrespectful. After the call, they said among themselves:
“They have zero tact. It’s like relationships don’t matter to them.”
What Andrés perceived as an attack, his Dutch and American colleagues understood as efficiency and honesty.
High-Context vs. Low-Context Cultures
More than 40 years ago, anthropologist Edward T. Hall introduced the concept of high-context and low-context cultures.
High-context cultures (Costa Rica, Japan, Mexico, among others) communicate through more than words: silence, tone, courtesy, and reading between the lines matter. Harmony and relationships take precedence over directness.
Low-context cultures (the Netherlands, Germany, the United States) value explicit communication. Getting straight to the point signals respect for time and transparency.
A short, direct email is perfectly normal in New York or Amsterdam—but in San José, it might feel cold or impolite.
The Underlying Issue: Trust
Another key difference is how trust is built:
In low-context cultures, trust is task-based: you earn it by meeting deadlines and saying things as they are.
In high-context cultures, trust is relationship-based: it grows through personal connection and thoughtful interaction.
The Dutch colleague believed that being frank showed integrity. Andrés interpreted it as a lack of care for the relationship.
So What Should Leaders Do?
The challenge for leaders like Andrés is not to “put up with it,” but to reframe and build bridges.
Here are a few strategies that help:
Separate the form from the content.
A direct tone isn’t a personal attack—it often reflects a different way of showing respect. Give the famous benefit of the doubt.
Name the difference neutrally.
Andrés could say:
“In Latin America we usually take a few minutes to connect. I understand you prefer to dive straight into the issues. How about we find a balance?”
Align on communication norms.
A simple agreement works: five minutes of personal check-in, then straight to the critical topics.
Shift your mindset.
Instead of thinking, “They’re being disrespectful,” try:
“For them, this level of frankness is a sign of seriousness.”
At the end of the day, we create the reality we choose. We decide which perspective we take and which story we tell ourselves—and our teams.
From Tension to Advantage
Andrés’ case shows that in intercultural communication, there are no “right” or “wrong” styles. There are simply different ways of expressing respect.
For some, clarity is respect.
For others, courtesy is respect.
When teams learn to recognize these differences and talk about them openly, they don’t just avoid conflict—they turn cultural diversity into a strategic asset: more empathy, more trust, and stronger results.
In a world where every company is global, the question is no longer if we’ll encounter different styles, but how we choose to respond when we do.
So the next time a colleague sounds too direct—or too diplomatic—for your taste, ask yourself:
Is this person being rude… or simply showing respect in their own way?
Comments