The communication failures that damage collaborations rarely involve anyone not understanding the words. They happen between people who both speak good English and both left the meeting believing it went well — with different understandings of what was agreed.
Conventions that differ
- Disagreement is often expressed indirectly.
- "That might be difficult" frequently means no.
- Silence in a meeting may signal disagreement rather than consent.
- Saying yes may acknowledge a request rather than commit to it.
- None of this is evasion — it is a different convention for disagreeing without causing loss of face.
Checking understanding
- Summarise decisions in writing after every meeting and invite corrections.
- Ask open questions rather than yes-or-no questions.
- Ask what would make this difficult rather than is this possible.
- Follow up individually after group meetings.
Working languages
- English proficiency varies widely, including within one group.
- Written English is often stronger than spoken.
- Technical vocabulary is usually solid; conversational nuance less so.
- Written follow-up gives everyone time to be precise.
Practical adjustments
- Circulate an agenda beforehand.
- Speak in shorter sentences; avoid idioms and humour that depends on context.
- Do not treat speed of response in a second language as a measure of competence.
- Pause deliberately and invite comment by name.
Interpretation for fieldwork
- Use professional interpreters for anything involving participants.
- Do not use a junior team member as an informal interpreter.
- Back-translate consent materials.
One thing worth remembering
Ask "what would make this difficult?" rather than "is this possible?"
The second invites a polite yes in almost any setting. The first gives people a legitimate way to describe the obstacle they can already see — which is the thing you actually needed to hear.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
Where do communication failures actually happen?
Between people who both speak good English and both believed the meeting went well, but left with different understandings of what was agreed.
Which conventions differ?
Disagreement expressed indirectly, that might be difficult meaning no, silence signalling disagreement rather than consent, and yes acknowledging rather than committing.
How do you check understanding?
Summarise decisions in writing after every meeting and invite corrections, ask open questions, and follow up individually after group meetings.
What practical adjustments help?
Circulate an agenda beforehand, use shorter sentences and avoid idioms, do not treat response speed as competence, and pause deliberately inviting comment by name.
What is a better question than is this possible?
What would make this difficult — it gives people a legitimate way to describe the obstacle they can already see.
