Every team is made up of individuals with different backgrounds, values and habits that shape how they work. When it comes to collaboration and innovation, there are clear advantages of diverse teams. However, there are also opportunities for miscommunication, frustration and stalled progress.
The stakes are high. Only 29 percent of employees are satisfied with how they collaborate with their coworkers, down from 36 percent just a few years ago, according to data from Gartner. So how can teams turn their differences into a source of strength rather than friction?
The answer starts with awareness. When team members understand each other’s work styles and make a conscious effort to implement strategies to work better together, they can turn potential misunderstandings into stronger collaboration and more innovative solutions.
Here are some of the key ways culture shapes how people work and interact on teams.
Trust is built in different ways
Trust is the foundation of strong teams, but people build and measure trust differently. In some cultures, trust grows primarily through relationship-building. People tend to want to spend time getting to know each other before moving quickly into tasks. In places like Brazil, Mexico and parts of the Middle East, investing in personal connection and informal conversation is often seen as essential to effective collaboration.
In other cultures, trust is built through reliability and performance. Delivering on commitments and demonstrating competence matter more than relationship-building. In countries such as Germany, Switzerland and the U.S., consistently executing tasks could be the fastest way to build trust.
While one team member may focus on task execution and another on building productive relationships, awareness of each other’s work styles can inform effective collaboration, helping them avoid misunderstandings and flex their styles a bit when working together.
Research from Great Place To Work shows that high-trust companies generate 8.5 times more revenue per employee than the U.S. market, so organizations have much to gain by building high-trust cultures.
Feedback styles differ more than you think
How feedback is delivered and received is heavily shaped by culture. Some cultures value direct, candid feedback delivered clearly and quickly. In places such as Australia or the Netherlands, straightforward criticism is often viewed as honest and efficient. Other cultures prefer indirect, nuanced feedback that preserves harmony and protects relationships. In countries such as Thailand or Indonesia, input may be delivered subtly or through suggestion rather than explicit statements.
Differences also appear in where and when feedback is shared. In some cultures, public recognition and correction are normal. In more hierarchical societies, like Japan, these are reserved for one-on-one settings.
When managers and team members have different expectations for how feedback is delivered, good intentions can be misread easily. Direct feedback may be seen as disrespectful, while indirect feedback may be seen as unclear or unhelpful. Over time, this reduces psychological safety and openness.
With greater awareness of individual preferences, managers can adapt how they provide feedback to each team member, and team members can adjust how they share their thoughts and feedback with one another. This mutual understanding fosters constructive dialogue, reduces friction and builds strong team dynamics.
The influences behind meeting participation
Meetings often reveal differences in how people prefer to communicate and engage, and these differences are often shaped by cultural norms around communication, respect and authority.
In more egalitarian cultures, meeting participants tend to share opinions openly and state their positions clearly. In more indirect communication cultures, people may signal concerns through careful wording, questions or subtle cues rather than direct statements. A comment that sounds tentative may actually carry strong disagreement.
Silence is also interpreted differently across cultures. Some participants pause before speaking to show respect and thoughtful consideration. Others speak quickly to show engagement and preparedness. When these styles mix, fast speakers may be seen as dominating, while quieter participants may be seen as disengaged, even when they are fully involved.
Cultural views of hierarchy also influence how people contribute. In more egalitarian cultures, team members often feel comfortable speaking up, challenging ideas and contributing no matter who is in the room. In more hierarchical cultures, employees may wait to be invited into the conversation or defer to senior voices throughout the meeting. A lack of input does not always mean a lack of ideas.
Leaders who recognize that engagement looks different from person to person are better able to draw out balanced participation and avoid misreading intent.
How decisions should be made
Decision-making is another hidden driver of team dynamics, with many factors influencing both pace and process. Some people are comfortable making fast decisions with limited data and adjusting later if needed. This approach is common in more risk-tolerant, action-oriented cultures such as the U.S., where progress and momentum are priorities.
Others prefer thorough analysis, broader consultation and careful risk review before deciding. This pattern is often seen in cultures such as Germany and Japan, where precision and consensus carry more weight. The priority is reducing risk and ensuring strategic alignment before action.
Expectations about who should make decisions also vary. In some cultures, authority and hierarchy determine who decides, while in others, shared ownership and group consensus are essential for commitment. Without awareness of these differences, teams can experience frustration, slower progress or a lack of buy-in, even when everyone is acting in good faith. Teams that recognize and discuss these tendencies are better able to balance speed with thoroughness and make decisions that everyone understands and supports.
Uncover the hidden factors shaping your team dynamics
Stronger collaboration starts with shared understanding. While the broad cultural generalizations mentioned above can help guide collaboration with people from specific cultures, it is essential to keep in mind that each person’s work style is influenced by more than just their cultural identity.
Seeing a visual of someone’s work style in the GlobeSmart® Profile and how they interact within teams in Team DynamicsSM provides the insight needed for successful collaboration.
Learn more about Team Dynamics, see it in action and reach out to the Aperian team to discuss how it can support the teams at your organization.
