Cross-border work rarely fails because of language. It fails because people assume they’re aligned—when they’re not.

Many people assume that when cross-border collaboration breaks down, it’s due to a lack of capability, insufficient effort, or language barriers.

But the real issue is often less visible: colliding assumptions. And those collisions usually surface only after decisions stall, relationships strain, or trust erodes.

From my experience working across Canada, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and North America, one pattern repeats itself. What global professionals struggle with most is not English proficiency, but how meaning is conveyed, how authority operates, and how trust is built.

Intercultural leadership isn’t about etiquette or cultural stereotypes.It’s about deeper operating questions:

• Where are decisions actually made?

a typing hand on a computer to people all over the world. cross border communication

• How is disagreement expressed?

• When is it acceptable to take risk?

• How are expertise and credibility demonstrated?

The answers vary by culture.

In Canada and much of North America, active debate often signals engagement and accountability. In Korea or Japan, the same behavior may be seen as unnecessary friction that disrupts relationships. In Singapore, fast, data-driven decision-making can feel natural, while other teams expect context-setting and narrative alignment first.

There’s no right or wrong.But when these differences aren’t aligned, costs accumulate.

As a co-founder of Orbis CrossBorder Communication, my work focuses on this “in-between” space. Drawing on intercultural leadership research, the CQ® (Cultural Intelligence) framework, and real-world executive and meeting experience, we help leaders make decisions, persuade, and exert influence across borders.

Where have you seen misalignment show up in cross-border work—long before anyone named it?