Managers in Western companies often urge Vietnamese staff to speak up more during meetings. They prepare extensively beforehand, push themselves to share opinions, and try to state “yes” or “no” more directly. On paper, these efforts look exactly like what they have been told to do. Yet, the discomfort lingers. After sessions end, one team member might ask if they spoke too much, or if the timing was right. Even when opinions are voiced, employees often remain unsure how they were received, leading to hesitation before the next meeting.
Two perspectives, one invisible gap
A Vietnamese employee working with an American manager described the disconnect this way: “He keeps asking for our opinions in meetings. But sometimes, I don’t think he really understands what it means for us to voice our opinions strongly like that. It is not easy at all. In Vietnam, we normally have to consider many things when we speak in formal meetings.” Both sides have a valid point. For Western managers, speaking up signals engagement and ownership. Challenging a proposal contributes to better results. This logic relies on individual contribution: put your thinking on the table, even if incomplete, and disagree without fearing the relationship.
Read Also: Dorset Gardens and Clovelle of Woodlands: Two New Residential Opportunities in Singapore
Vietnamese employees often operate under a different logic: relational harmony. Before speaking, they weigh hierarchy, face, relationships, timing, and the group’s reaction. Speaking too early feels risky. Challenging a senior person directly is uncomfortable. Presenting unfinished thoughts can damage credibility. Neither logic is inherently right or wrong, but when they clash, the gap becomes visible. Indirectness can hide problems, and deference to hierarchy can delay escalation. Yet, a preference for harmony might also block the disagreement a team actually needs.
When Vietnamese employees hesitate to speak, give feedback, or raise problems, HR departments frequently respond with communication skills training. These courses teach people how to structure messages, distinguish facts from assumptions, and clarify responsibilities. While valuable, such training rarely addresses the underlying assumptions embedded in the instruction “speak up.” That phrase often carries cultural baggage: speak early, be explicit, state your individual view, and be ready to disagree even if your thinking is not fully formed. Suddenly, the discomfort makes more sense.
Read Also: Haze and rain raise health risks
Globalization has changed who actually works “internationally.” A Vietnamese professional can sit in Ho Chi Minh City, report to an American manager, collaborate with colleagues in Singapore and India, and respond to headquarters in Europe without crossing a national border. The 2025 Intercultural Environment Survey by NetExpat, based on responses from more than 750 organizations worldwide, reflects this reality. Ninety-six percent of respondents considered cultural agility critical, while more than 60 percent identified effective communication as a major intercultural challenge. Most strikingly, 70 percent believed intercultural training should be available to all employees—both global expats and locals—yet around 70 percent of organizations still focus such training mainly on expatriates and international assignees.
This creates a significant disconnect. Organizations often invest heavily in preparing foreign workers to adapt to local customs, while expecting local staff to absorb global corporate norms through standard communication workshops. Simply recognizing cultural differences isn’t enough. A Western manager might grasp why Vietnamese colleagues hesitate to speak up, and Vietnamese employees might understand why their boss prefers direct input. But mutual understanding doesn’t guarantee smoother teamwork. The real challenge lies in establishing clear expectations: What constitutes meaningful participation in this specific team? Are preliminary ideas encouraged? When is the appropriate time to voice concerns? How should disagreements with senior leaders be handled? These norms must be explicitly defined rather than left to cultural interpretation.