Picture a Monday video call with colleagues in Mumbai, Frankfurt, and Chicago. The project lead asks, ‘Can we have the revised draft by Friday?’ Rahul, a capable engineer in Mumbai, answers, ‘Yes, we will try.’ In his mind, he has just signalled that Friday looks difficult and that he needs help. The lead in Frankfurt hears something entirely different: a clear commitment.
On Friday afternoon, nothing has been delivered. The lead feels let down and quietly wonders whether Rahul can be relied upon. Rahul feels blamed for a deadline that he never actually accepted. Both of them behaved politely, both were doing their best, and yet trust took a small hit that neither of them fully understands.
This scene is a composite, but it plays out in some form in almost every workplace that brings people from different regions, languages, and backgrounds together. It is the reason we want to look at ‘culture fit’ from a different angle in this issue.
Why ‘fit’ is the wrong goal for a diverse team
The phrase ‘culture fit’ began as a reasonable idea: people do better when their values line up with the values of the place they work. Over time, though, it has drifted toward something less useful, which is the unspoken expectation that everyone should behave, speak, and react in the same way. In a team that spans several cities, languages, and generations, that expectation quietly asks people to hide the very differences that make the team valuable.
A better goal is mutual understanding. Instead of asking whether someone fits in, we can ask whether the people on the team understand how one another communicate, and whether the team has agreed on how it wants to work together. The first approach asks individuals to adapt silently. The second asks the whole team to take some responsibility for being understood.
Where misunderstandings quietly hide
The anthropologist Edward Hall described a useful distinction between high-context and low-context communication. In low-context settings, people expect the words themselves to carry the message, so a direct statement is considered clear and respectful. In high-context settings, much of the meaning sits in tone, relationships, and what is left unsaid, so a very blunt statement can feel abrupt or even rude. Erin Meyer’s The Culture Map builds on this idea. Three gaps appear most often.
- The meaning of ‘yes.’ It can mean ‘I agree,’ ‘I heard you,’ or ‘I don’t want to embarrass you by refusing.’ Rahul’s ‘we will try’ lived in that space.
- Feedback and hierarchy. Some colleagues expect blunt criticism and open challenge, while others expect gentle hints and raise concerns only in private.
- Silence and time. A quiet colleague may be thinking, or may be nervous about speaking a second language, and ‘ASAP’ can mean within the hour or sometime soon.
These are tendencies, not verdicts, because individuals vary widely. Treat a difference as a hypothesis and check it with a kind question.
Habits that help
- Make the implicit explicit. Say whether a deadline is firm or only an estimate.
- Ask open questions. ‘What would you need to finish this by Friday?’ gets a more honest answer than ‘Can you finish this by Friday?’
- Check understanding kindly. Try ‘How do you plan to approach this, so I know I explained it well?’ instead of ‘Do you understand?’
- Watch your idioms. Phrases like ‘touch base’ and ‘ballpark figure’ confuse second-language speakers.
- Offer several ways to contribute. Share an agenda in advance and invite written comments after the call.
- Agree on team norms together, covering feedback, disagreement, and deadlines.
One thing to try this week
Replace ‘Any questions?’ with ‘What would you like me to repeat or clarify?’ It makes it easier for people to speak up without feeling they have failed.
Over to you
Have you ever misread a colleague, or been misread yourself, because of a difference in culture or style?
To go deeper, explore our cross-cultural communication masterclass.
Until next time, may your teams be a little more curious and a little less certain about what the other person meant.