When a team is stuck in a cycle of tension and misunderstanding, jumping straight into conflict resolution often backfires. By shifting the focus from conflict to high-context vs low-context communication, teams can build a shared language and move out of defensive mode towards understanding each other better.
Here is how I recently developed and structured a workshop with a team to do that.
What I was doing there
The leader who brought me into the work was being constantly dragged into team disagreements and was unable to focus on what she was supposed to be doing.
Unsurprisingly, she was very frustrated and after having 121s with the team myself it was clear that they were also struggling with constant conflict and a feeling that they were unable to get things done because of ‘difficult’ people. They appeared to be stuck in a cycle of misunderstanding and miscommunication with no clear way to move forward.
It was the most diverse team I’ve ever worked with; there were eight different countries represented and no single shared language. This was a fantastic and exciting mix when it came to generating ideas but challenging when it came to how they related to each other. Because of the lack of shared language in the group, everyone had the extra cognitive load for carrying out the simplest conversations.
They wanted me to come in and work with them to understand more about conflict, their individual styles (diagnostic tools were mentioned) and how they can work through it together, but I wasn’t sure if that was the right place to start.
Taking a step back
From my experience, putting a stressed and defensive team in a room together and guiding them to resolve their issues doesn’t often go well.
The thought of sending them a really long questionnaire about conflict style didn’t feel right. They are already struggling with cognitive load. Whatever I did needed to be easier and focused on building a shared language as a team.
It made sense to move away from the word conflict entirely and focus more on communication and their unmet needs.
Low vs High context
Having recently moved to a different country myself, I’d been reading the book The Culture Map by Erin Meyer. I wanted to first help the team to get a shared understanding of how they approach communication, and this seemed like a good tool to help.
The book popularises the concept of High Context vs Low context communicators which was originally coined by anthropologist Edward T. Hall in his 1959 book The Silent Language.
At its core, the difference comes down to one question:
How much of what you say is explicitly stated and how much is left between the lines?
Low-context communicators prefer clear and direct language. They want detailed follow-ups after meetings, written rules, and explicit agreements. For them, being clear is being kind.
High-context communicators rely on reading between the lines, observing and interpreting tone and body language. They often deliver messages softly or indirectly to protect team harmony and relationships. For them, over-explaining every detail can feel patronising or unnecessary.
Example high context communicators: “It would be great if you could finish up what you’re doing at some point mid week” vs low context communicators: “I want you to finish that by the end of Wednesday at the latest”
Meyer’s book is focused on mapping out international culture, but I was uncomfortable focusing too much on that. I don’t like putting people into boxes based on where they are born. There’s a risk of stereotyping, and also feeling judged on where you are from.
There are so many other things that play a role in our communication style, things like
- Our upbringing & personal life
- Gender
- Neurodivergence
- Experiences of previous workplaces
All of these and more can play a part in how we show up.
What’s important is for a team to understand how their colleagues see this and what their needs are. For example, if a low-context person sends a brief message with no “hellos” or “how was your weekend?”, a high-context person can see that as rude, cold, or even aggressive.
There’s also something really important things to remember when talking about this:
- There is no right or wrong way to be. Both are totally valid ways of communicating, even if they don’t fit with what you want.
- Like lots of other things in life, this isn’t a binary thing. Some people will happily sit in the middle of the two styles.
Ultimately, we don’t need to place too much importance on where people sit. It’s more about the types of conversations and understanding we can get about others from having these conversations.
The workshop we held
My aim for the workshop was to try to keep it as light and simple as possible, given the language barriers and tension in the room. My main outcome for the day was for the team to leave feeling like they understood each other a bit better.
Gathering data
Before we’d met in person, I’d sent a short quiz out to people to understand where they felt they sat on the low to high context scale. The advice was not to overthink it and that, of course, there weren’t any right or wrong answers.
An example question from that was:
After an important meeting
A) I want a follow-up email that lists every decision made, who is responsible for what, and the exact deadlines.
B) A detailed follow-up email is usually not necessary. We all sat in the room and agreed, so we already know what to do.
Once everyone had sent me their answers, I could do a quick visual for myself on where people sat on the scale.
Setting the scene
On the day with the team, I started the session with a conversation around the challenges of communication and the added load that language, culture and background bring to the mix.
It was really helpful for them to acknowledge that they do have a particularly heavy cognitive load, given their different languages and backgrounds and for them to understand that, of course, things were going to be hard for them. We had a good reflection and discussion session around this. It felt like people’s defences were starting to drop.
Visualising the team
We then visualised where people were on the scale of low/high context, and this prompted further discussion. Some people were surprised to be next to others on the scale, and for some it was completely obvious where they would sit in relation to others. It also showed that point about it not being binary; there were indeed a couple of people in the middle.
Discovery in pairs
I then paired people up who were farthest apart on the scale and asked them to have a conversation about their preferred way to communicate. They were free to take the conversation anywhere they wanted, but there were a couple of prompts
- If I send you a very short email with no “Hello,” what do you think? Do you think I am angry, or just busy?
- When you are silent in a meeting, what does your silence mean? Does it mean you agree, or you disagree?
I closed off this section by asking them to make a simple promise to each other based on what they had heard, e.g.
“To work best with Amina, I promise to tell her more directly if I’m having an issue delivering something rather than waiting for her to notice.”
Wrapping up and appreciation
Coming back into an open discussion, some shifts were starting to happen in the team. People were opening up more, starting to be honest about how things are for them, and realising how things were for others. There was still some tension and people not feeling heard, but also some apologies and promises to try harder.
There was also an acknowledgement that people are who they are and we can’t expect them to change just because we want them to. Saying that, there are things we can do day to day with the understanding of other people’s needs in mind.
We finished off the day with an appreciation session focused on what they had learned about each other and what they appreciated.
It felt like this was an important first step in starting to resolve conflict. It was the beginning of chipping away at people’s exteriors and starting to build empathy in the team.
Why this is important work
There is a serious reason why this type of work is important, and this isn’t just the ‘soft’ stuff to be left for your annual team away day.
Put simply, teams that can’t communicate find it much harder to get things done. They keep circling back over the same patterns (very much like families and other close relationships). Often this means a leader has to act as a parent or referee to sort things out, taking them away from what they are supposed to be doing.
It can also have an impact on your products and services. Conway’s Law states that teams and organisations will design things that copy their own communication structures. That can apply across large organisations but also within teams. If the communication is messy, it’s likely the service will reflect that.
By taking the time to look at the underlying needs of others and how they prefer to communicate can get you some of the way to working and delivering in a better way.
It’s a privilege to work with teams on this type of work and to provide the space for things to get messy before they get better.
Further reading
Cara Bermingham 
Leave a comment