Clear communication and negotiation depend on checking what the people in the conversation mean and how they make decisions. In an international deal, language, working practices and expectations may differ. Ask about those differences rather than predicting an individual’s behaviour from their nationality.
Preparation should help the participants understand one another. It should not turn broad cultural descriptions into rules about how someone will respond, whether they can decide or how quickly they should agree.
Agree how the conversation will work
Confirm the purpose, participants and language before the meeting. Ask whether anyone needs material in advance or support with translation. Explain whether the session is for exploring options, resolving a particular issue or approving terms.
Check the decision process directly. A contact may be able to recommend a proposal but need other people to approve it. Record those responsibilities instead of assuming that the most senior person present can settle every issue.
For remote meetings, confirm time zones and give participants a way to flag connection or audio problems. A pause may be a technical issue or time spent translating, rather than reluctance to answer.
Use language that survives clarification
Avoid idioms and unexplained shorthand when they may obscure the proposal. Define words that affect the agreement, such as “ready,” “approved” or “included.” Different teams can use the same word for different stages of work.
For a fictional example, one team may use “ready to launch” to mean technical testing is complete. Another may expect user training and internal approval as well. Asking what must happen before launch exposes that difference before the deadline arrives.
Show dates, amounts and units clearly. If a figure depends on an exchange rate, volume or period, state the assumption. Read back material changes rather than relying on an ambiguous nod or brief response.
Check your interpretation without assigning motives
When an answer is unclear, summarise what you understood and invite correction. For example: “I understood that the timing works, but the scope still needs review. Have I got that right?”
Avoid treating silence, politeness or a change in tone as proof of agreement or deception. Those observations may suggest a question, but they do not establish the answer.
If someone seems uncomfortable raising a concern in a group, offer an appropriate route for questions after the meeting. Let participants choose how to use it; do not assume everyone from the same place has the same preference.
Make disagreement specific
Identify the term or assumption that needs work. Separate it from a judgement about the person. “The proposed date leaves no time for testing” gives the discussion a problem to resolve. “You are being difficult” does not.
Ask what would make an option workable and explain your own constraints. Pause when the group needs information or approval. A rushed answer may leave the parties with different understandings of the commitment.
For changes to price, scope or delivery, follow the same negotiation preparation process you would use elsewhere, while adapting the meeting format and timetable to the participants.
Use local knowledge carefully
A colleague or partner familiar with the setting can help you prepare questions and identify practical requirements. Ask them to distinguish experience with this organisation from general expectations about a market.
Confirm their role in the discussion and any authority to make commitments. If an interpreter is involved, allow time for complete explanations and check important terms with the relevant specialists.
Confirm what happens next
Send a short record of agreed points, unresolved issues and actions. Use specific owners and dates. Invite corrections, especially where the discussion crossed languages or teams.
If your team repeatedly leaves international meetings with conflicting interpretations, bring anonymised examples to a discovery meeting with The Sales Arc. The useful starting point is the communication problem and the decisions affected, rather than a label applied to a culture.
