.jpg)
What are workplace norms, and why do they differ? Every office has its own way of doing things – unwritten rules about communication, decision-making, feedback and even how formally people dress or how meetings run. These norms originate from local culture. For instance, what seems polite or efficient in one country can feel rude or confusing in another. As Harvard Business Review reports, Western managers often internalise values like autonomy, empowerment and directness, yet roughly 70% of the world’s workforce comes from more collectivist, hierarchical cultures.
In practice, that means Americans and Northern Europeans may value bold debate and individual initiative, while many Asian and some Southern or Eastern European workplaces emphasise group harmony, respect for seniority and indirect communication. These cultural lenses shape everything from how people give feedback (direct vs. roundabout) to whether praise is shared with the team or aimed at an individual. In short, workplace norms vary because they’re rooted in local history, social values and communication styles. Leaders who ignore these differences risk confusion, frustration or even conflicts among team members.
Western “Default” Norms vs. Other Expectations
Many companies export a one-size-fits-all leadership style from Silicon Valley or corporate HQ in the West, but these “default” practices can clash with non-Western norms. For example, Western managers often assume that giving people wide autonomy will motivate them. But research shows autonomy isn’t a universal motivator. In hierarchical cultures (common in Asia or the Middle East), employees may feel anxious if leadership is too hands-off; they expect clear guidance and decisions from above. In fact, Geert Hofstede’s work (echoed in HBR) found that people from individualistic cultures want to be consulted, whereas those from collectivist cultures typically prefer leaders to make decisions on behalf of the team. A Dutch psychologist cited in HBR adds that many collectivist leaders do consider others’ views, but less overtly, so Western colleagues shouldn’t mistake politeness for disengagement.
Similarly, the Western emphasis on “psychological safety” (open debate without fear) can backfire. Amy Edmondson’s famous research shows that teams need to feel they won’t be embarrassed to speak up. But in cultures that prize harmony (such as Japan or Ghana), too much outspoken debate can be uncomfortable. A recent HBR summary notes that “people from collectivist cultures are often uncomfortable with an emphasis on open debate and frank speaking,” even if it comes from positive intent. What a U.S. manager thinks of as candid feedback might feel disrespectful or embarrassing to a colleague from a face-saving culture. In one survey example, employees in some Asian countries stayed late at the office not for more work, but because leaving before their boss was considered disrespectful, a behaviour rooted in respect for authority, not in attention to hours.
Two other Western defaults often misalign with other norms. First, putting the spotlight on differences and diversity (though positive) can sometimes lead to stereotyping. HBR warns that obsessing over “what makes us different” risks locking people into labels (“the German engineer,” “the millennial”), instead of treating each person as unique. And finally, transparency, telling everything openly, is applauded in many Western cultures but can jar people raised with indirect feedback norms.
As one HBR note explains, in face-saving cultures (such as South Korea or much of Latin America), it can be “disorienting” when a leader bluntly discusses mistakes in public. Team members may prefer a quiet, respectful fix behind the scenes rather than a public airing of errors. All together, these differences in autonomy, communication style, and openness mean that Western leadership habits can easily fall short when transplanted elsewhere.
Using Cultural Intelligence (CQ) to Bridge the Gap
The good news is that none of this is insoluble. Experts emphasise that the key skill is cultural intelligence (CQ), essentially the ability to sense others’ norms and adapt accordingly. For example, CIPD research urges leaders to “show curiosity, assume nothing and genuinely listen” when leading diverse teams. Managers can start by learning about team members’ backgrounds and by asking how they prefer to communicate. Do people seem more comfortable with formal updates or informal check-ins? Do they expect clear directives or open choice?
Practically speaking, you and your teams can co-create new norms that blend different styles. One effective practice is to openly discuss how the team will work together: set ground rules for meetings, decision-making and feedback that everyone agrees on. For instance, a team might decide that one person leads the discussion and goes around for input, so that quieter members get a chance to speak up without being put on the spot. Simple adjustments like rotating who sets meeting times (to respect local holidays or prayer times, as recommended by Gallup) or rephrasing questions to be more open-ended – can go a long way towards inclusion.
Benefits of Inclusive, Adaptive Norms
Gallup’s research suggests that treating people with respect and adapting to their needs fosters belonging: when leaders “value employees’ strengths, individually and collectively,” people feel a genuine sense of inclusion. By contrast, ignoring cultural norms can have real effects: Gallup notes that nine out of ten employees who feel disrespected report discrimination or harassment experiences.
In practice, an office that blends styles might hold some meetings in a structured Western format (agenda, time slots) but also allow time for informal conversation, or alternate between private and public feedback channels. Recognition might include group awards (valued in team-focused cultures) alongside celebrating individual wins. These inclusive designs reduce misunderstandings and conflict. As leaders build habits like soliciting feedback in culturally sensitive ways, they effectively build the cultural intelligence of the team.
In short, when norms clash, work becomes harder and trust erodes. But by raising awareness, listening carefully, and co-creating hybrid norms, in-office leaders can build a smooth-running, diverse workplace. The result is teams that are more comfortable at work, more trusting of one another, and better able to focus on shared goals, all of which drive better results for the company.
What managers can do next
If you’re leading teams spread across Europe, America, and Asia, you don’t need to become a cultural anthropologist; you need a few practical habits that make work smoother and signal to talent that your company understands how global teams thrive.
Start with a simple Team Charter.
Get the basics in writing so no one has to guess the rules. Name core hours, who decides what, how feedback happens, and where decisions live. One clean line works: “Our core hours are 10–4 CET; urgent issues go in chat; decisions are logged in [tool]; recognition is shared privately and in team meetings.” Clarity beats heroics, Gallup finds well-being rises when expectations are explicit and manager-led, not left to culture-by-osmosis.
Balance autonomy with guidance.
In the U.S. or Northern Europe, latitude can energize. In many Asian offices, too much freedom feels like an absence. Set direction first, then flex the leash by person and context. This is cultural intelligence in practice: diagnose the preference, then dial autonomy up or down.
Design feedback that fits more than one culture.
Run two lanes: direct channels for those who prefer blunt, fast input and private or written routes for colleagues who value face-saving. Prime meetings with pre-reads and ask open prompts (“What are we missing?”) so quieter voices can add substance without performative debate.
Show respect on the calendar—visibly.
If HQ holidays and meeting times always win, people notice. Publish a shared holiday view across Europe–America–Asia and schedule around it. Rotate early/late meetings so the pain is shared. Small policy signals move trust, and formal norms that protect time correlate with stronger employee confidence in leadership.
Measure, then adjust in short cycles.
Don’t assume the new norms work, check! Use quick pulses and 1:1s: Are meetings clearer? Do people feel respected? Close the loop by tweaking the charter every quarter. Gallup’s data consistently ties manager behaviour and routine conversations to engagement and wellbeing; treat norms like any other performance system.
Bottom Line: Culture as a Performance Edge
Cultures shape how people work, and ignoring that can derail even the best team. The good news is that autonomy, safety, diversity and transparency all do matter, but they must be balanced. Managers who invest in cultural intelligence (CQ) learn to read contexts and flex accordingly. They treat autonomy as situational (sometimes more, sometimes less), blend safety with explicit norms for candour, and align diversity efforts around shared goals. As CIPD notes, teams that truly harness diverse perspectives can innovate in ways homogenous teams never could.