When Leadership Doesn't Translate

What works in London may fail in Lagos. What feels clear in Copenhagen can land as rude in Tokyo. And the leadership style that earned you a promotion in one context might be the very thing that undermines you in another.

I learned this the hard way.

1. The Moment

You're on a video call with your team in Singapore. You've just finished explaining a new process, clearly and efficiently, the way you always do. You asked if there were questions. Everyone nodded. You moved on.

Three weeks later, you discover the process was never implemented. When you ask what happened, you get vague responses. "We were still clarifying some details." "There were some concerns." "We didn't want to bother you."

Here's the uncomfortable truth: they did speak up. You just didn't hear it.

The nods weren't agreement. They were acknowledgment. The silence wasn't clarity. It was deference. And "we didn't want to bother you" wasn't an excuse. It was a cultural norm you didn't recognise.

You weren't leading. You were broadcasting. And no one told you because, in their context, telling you directly would have been inappropriate.

2. What's Really Happening

Most leadership development treats leadership as a set of universal competencies. Be clear. Be decisive. Give feedback. Hold people accountable.

But the way these things are interpreted varies enormously across cultures.

In my work with leaders across more than 50 countries, I've seen the same pattern repeat: someone applies their default leadership style in a new context and can't understand why it isn't working. They're doing everything "right." They're being clear. They're being direct. They're following the playbook.

The playbook was written for a different game.

Some cultures rely heavily on implicit communication, non-verbal cues, and shared understanding. Others prefer direct, explicit communication. A leader trained to "be direct" may come across as abrasive in a culture that values indirectness. A leader who builds consensus may be seen as weak in a culture that expects decisive authority.

Neither approach is wrong. But applying one without understanding the other creates friction, confusion, and disengagement that looks like resistance but is actually misalignment.

3. The Common Move (and Why It Fails)

When leaders sense that something isn't landing across cultures, they usually do one of two things.

They explain harder.

More detail. More examples. More clarity. They assume the problem is comprehension. If they can just find the right words, the right framing, people will finally get it.

This is the feedback equivalent of speaking English more slowly and loudly to someone who speaks a different language. It doesn't help. It just makes you louder.

Or they assume the other culture needs to adapt.

"This is how we do things here." "They need to learn to speak up." "If they have concerns, they should raise them."

Which technically might be true. But you're now in a standoff where you're waiting for them to change and they're waiting for you to notice that your approach isn't working. Guess who loses? Everyone. But especially you, because you're the one who needs things to get done.

Both moves fail for the same reason: they keep the leader's style as the default and treat everything else as a deviation to be corrected.

4. A Different Choice

Leaders who succeed across cultures do something different. They treat their own style as a style, not a universal standard.

This doesn't mean abandoning who you are or becoming a chameleon who shifts personality depending on the room. It means recognising that how you were trained to lead reflects the culture you came from. And it means staying curious about how leadership works elsewhere.

In practice, this looks like asking different questions.

Instead of "Why didn't they speak up?" ask "What would make it safe to speak up in this context?"

Instead of "Why don't they just tell me directly?" ask "How do people in this culture signal disagreement, and am I missing it?"

Instead of "They need to adapt to our way of working," ask "What would I need to adjust so this actually works?"

The shift isn't about lowering standards. It's about achieving the same outcomes through different means.

5. Practice Prompt

Before your next meeting with a team from a different cultural context, try this:

Write down one assumption you're making about how the conversation should go. Maybe it's that silence means agreement. Maybe it's that questions will be asked openly. Maybe it's that feedback will be direct.

Then ask yourself: What if that assumption is wrong? What would I need to watch for? What would I need to ask differently?

You don't need to become an expert in every culture. You need to become aware that your defaults are defaults, not universals.

Try it once. Then notice: what changes when you stop expecting everyone to communicate like you do?

Like this approach? This article is based on the framework from my #1 bestselling book, Leadership Cannot Be Automated, available on Amazon.

Tanya Davis is the founder of PELMO International, and author of the #1 bestselling book Leadership Cannot Be Automated. She works with organisations across 50+ countries to diagnose and fix leadership and communication breakdowns.