Feedback That Works in New York Might Fall Flat in India — And Vice Versa

I still remember a video call with a senior colleague in Hyderabad, watching him nod and smile through my entire feedback session. I logged off feeling confident. He logged off confused, quietly hurt, and with no clear idea of what I’d actually asked him to change.

That moment changed the way I think about feedback forever.

Growing up in Brazil, then building my career across the United States, Canada, Poland, India, Germany and China (and speaking five languages along the way), I’ve had a front-row seat to just how differently feedback lands across cultures. What reads as honest and direct in Berlin can feel blunt and disrespectful in Bangalore. What feels like respectful restraint in New Delhi can feel evasive and unhelpful in New York.

This isn’t about one culture being “better” at communication. It’s about understanding that we’re all operating from deeply ingrained norms — norms most of us have never been asked to examine.

The Direct vs. Indirect Divide

In her landmark book The Culture Map, INSEAD professor Erin Meyer maps cultures on a spectrum from “low-context” (where messages are explicit and direct) to “high-context” (where meaning is layered in tone, silence, and relationship). Germany and the U.S. tend to sit on the direct end. India, Japan, and much of Southeast Asia lean high-context.

What this means in practice: a manager trained in the U.S. who delivers feedback as “This report missed the mark — here’s what needs to change” might be seen as refreshingly clear to a colleague in Frankfurt and as unnecessarily harsh and face-threatening to a colleague in Chennai.

During my years working with teams in India, I learned to pay attention to what wasn’t said as much as what was. A quiet “yes” in a group meeting didn’t always mean agreement — sometimes it meant “I hear you and I respect you enough not to challenge you publicly.” Feedback had to happen in private, with relationship as the foundation.

Meanwhile, my German and Polish colleagues appreciated a level of directness that would have alarmed many of my American clients — no cushioning, no compliment sandwich, just clear facts and clear expectations. And they respected me more for it.

The Real Skill Isn’t a Script — It’s Cultural Intelligence

I want to be honest with you: there’s no universal formula for giving feedback across cultures. Anyone who hands you a script is oversimplifying a beautifully complex human challenge.

What actually works is cultural intelligence — the ability to stay curious, read context, ask better questions, and adapt your approach without losing your authenticity. That means:

• Learning whether your team member comes from a direct or indirect communication culture (and not assuming their passport tells the whole story — individuals vary)

• Choosing the setting intentionally: public praise, private critique in many high-context cultures

• Building enough relational trust that your feedback is received as care, not criticism

• Asking “How did that land for you?” more often than you think you need to

Beyond Meyer’s work, researchers like Geert Hofstede (whose cultural dimensions framework remains one of the most cited in cross-cultural management) highlight how power distance — the degree to which people accept hierarchy — shapes whether feedback from a leader is even seen as something that can be questioned or discussed.

This is exactly the work we dig into in my "Cross-Cultural Understanding for Global Teams" workshop. No scripts or shortcuts, teams learn real fluency.

Managing global teams? This is exactly what we work on in my "Cross-Cultural Understanding for Global Teams" workshop. Drop a comment or send me a message — I’d love to connect.