Are we mistaking cultural communication differences for a lack of competence?

Have you ever worked with someone who gives a three-minute answer to a question that only needed three sentences? They give you the context, then more context, then the thinking behind the thinking. Sometimes, before getting to the answer, they have already explained why they are giving you the answer.

In many workplaces, this can quickly be interpreted as over-explaining, a lack of confidence, poor communication or an inability to get to the point. But what if we sometimes misread culture as competence?

I am not talking about personality assessments or leadership models. I am talking about something much more ordinary: the way culture shapes how we communicate at work, and what happens when we mistake one communication style for a measure of professional ability.

I have noticed this particularly when working with people from different cultural backgrounds. In some cultures and communities, including parts of west Africa, South Asia and the Middle East, communication can place a strong value on relationship, context, respect, warmth and demonstrating thoroughness before getting to the transaction or the key point. That is not to say everyone from these cultures communicates this way, but these influences can show up in meetings, emails, presentations and conversations.

If you have spent most of your professional life in an environment where directness, brevity and getting straight to the answer are treated as signs of confidence, the difference can be quite noticeable.

I know because I had to learn it myself. As an African working professionally in the UK, I became increasingly aware of how people around me answered questions, structured presentations, wrote emails and contributed in meetings. I started noticing things I had previously taken for granted: how quickly people got to the point, how little context they sometimes gave, how a short answer could be considered confident, and how a longer explanation could sometimes be interpreted as uncertainty.

And I had to adapt. Not because the way I had communicated before was wrong, but because I was operating in a different professional and cultural context. That distinction matters. Adapting your communication does not mean throwing away your culture. It means understanding the environment you are working in and becoming more effective within it.

When direct communication becomes the professional default

This is where communications professionals need to pay attention. Although these behaviours are sometimes labelled as HR or “people issues”, they are fundamentally communication issues. They arise from differences in how individuals construct meaning, interpret tone and respond to instructions. Communications professionals design environments where clarity, accessibility and understanding can thrive. If we cannot recognise the cultural assumptions embedded in our own communication norms, we risk misinterpreting colleagues in the same way organisations sometimes misinterpret their audiences. This is not about managing people. It is about managing meaning. And meaning is our profession.

I still communicate in ways shaped by who I am and where I come from. But I have learned when I need to be more concise, when the context matters, when a meeting needs a direct answer and when someone simply needs the next step. That is professional development too. But there is another side to this conversation that we do not discuss enough: what happens when the responsibility for adaptation is placed entirely on the person entering the new culture.

Recently, I emailed a friend who works in a creative agency. I was simply asking about his availability for a Teams call to explore their services. His response contained the availability, but also insights into the agency’s approach, culture, capabilities and values. I read it and immediately recognised something. He was not simply answering my question. He was building confidence. He was showing that the relationship mattered. He was effectively saying: you can trust us with this.

But I also thought about someone from a completely different communication culture receiving exactly the same email. They might simply be thinking: “I asked when you were available.” Neither person is necessarily wrong. The difference is in what they believe good communication is doing. One person may think, “Answer the question.” Another may think, “Before I answer, let me establish the relationship and give you confidence in the answer.”

The risk of mistaking communication style for competence

The danger is not that people communicate differently. The danger is what we conclude from those differences. A manager may see someone giving a long answer and conclude that they lack confidence. A colleague may interpret a detailed explanation as someone who cannot get to the point. Someone may hear warmth and context and see unnecessary talking. Another person may hear a short, direct response and interpret it as coldness or dismissiveness.

The communication itself has not necessarily changed. The interpretation has. And interpretation matters in organisations. Because once a particular communication style becomes associated with being “professional”, people who communicate differently can find themselves having to work twice as hard to demonstrate the same competence.

Why cultural differences matter in communications teams

This becomes particularly important in communications teams. We spend our careers thinking about audiences, tone, accessibility, messaging and how people receive information. But do we apply the same thinking to how our own colleagues receive us?

Imagine a communications professional joining a new organisation. They are experienced, strategic, capable and confident. But their communication style is different from what their new colleagues are used to. They provide more context in meetings. They explain the thinking behind their recommendation. They take time to build a relationship before getting into the transaction. Perhaps they are less comfortable interrupting. Perhaps English is their second language and they are translating meaning as they speak.

None of that tells us whether they are good at communications. Yet if colleagues repeatedly show frustration, interrupt them, disengage or signal impatience, the professional notices. 

Most people notice. And eventually, they may start speaking less. They may stop offering the full idea. They may decide it is safer to say less in meetings. And that is where a cultural communication difference becomes an organisational problem. You can lose contributions from an excellent professional without ever formally deciding to exclude them.

I have been fortunate to work with managers who understood this. One manager in particular noticed the differences in my emails and found them amusing rather than problematic. She would say things like, “I love how you start your emails. They always make me smile, thanks.”

It sounds like a small thing, but it gave me something valuable: awareness without embarrassment. It allowed me to notice my own communication habits and understand how they were being received. I could then adapt. That is very different from being told, directly or indirectly, that the way you communicate is simply wrong.

Cultural intelligence means adapting both ways

Cultural intelligence requires self-awareness from the individual, awareness from the manager, and adaptation from both. It requires us to stop treating one communication style as the default. Communications professionals have to communicate effectively. If your audience needs a concise answer, give them one. If a senior leader needs a recommendation in three lines, you need to be able to provide it. If you are working in a new country or organisation, you need to observe, learn and adapt. I had to.

But organisations also have a responsibility. Managers who work with increasingly diverse teams need to become better at noticing cultural differences in communication before judging them. Sometimes the intervention does not need to be complicated. A manager can simply re-centre a question: “That’s helpful context. What would you recommend we do?” Or: “Can you give me the short version first, and then we can come back to the detail?”

That gives someone a cue without humiliating them.

Likewise, a manager can privately say: “I’ve noticed you give quite a lot of context before your recommendation. In this organisation, people tend to prefer the recommendation first. It might help you to lead with that, then give the context.”

That is constructive feedback. It teaches someone how to navigate the culture without telling them that their cultural way of communicating is inferior.

Perhaps this is something we should consider more seriously in communications leadership. We are increasingly comfortable talking about diversity in terms of who is represented in our organisations. But representation alone does not guarantee inclusion. People also need to feel that the way they speak, contribute, question and make meaning can exist within the professional environment.

Communications professionals spend their careers helping organisations understand audiences. Yet we do not always extend the same curiosity to the colleagues sitting beside us. Before we judge communication, perhaps we should ask a different question: are we assessing competence, or are we simply rewarding the communication style we are most accustomed to hearing?

None of this removes the responsibility to adapt. Communications professionals need to communicate effectively. If an audience needs brevity, we should be able to provide it. If a leader wants the recommendation first, we should be able to lead with it. I had to learn that myself.

But adaptation works best when it runs both ways. Cultural intelligence is not cultural assimilation. It is the ability to recognise that different communication styles may reflect different assumptions about relationships, respect, context and meaning, rather than differences in competence.

If we want diverse communications teams to thrive, we need environments that help people understand when and how to adapt, while remaining curious about the ways others communicate. Because people do not always contribute less because they lack ability. Sometimes the environment has simply taught them that the way they communicate is not the way the room wants to hear it.

And as communications professionals, we should be curious enough to notice the difference.

Carl Kwaku Asiedu is a communications specialist at Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.