In the course of our professional history, we have worked with many multicultural teams where the common language used in the workplace is English.

Each time, we find ourselves asking the same question: do these people truly understand one another?

When we listen to their conversations, we often struggle to follow them. It’s true that we are not experts in their specific fields, but we have observed that we never experience the same level of ambiguity when working with a teams of people who all speak the same native language.

This observation raises a fundamental question: How effective is the communication?

Even when a consensus appears to have been reached or a decision seems to have emerged after lengthy discussions, how can we be sure everyone has understood it in the same way? How can we check that key messages will be communicated accurately?

We are certainly not questioning the value of multiculturalism. Diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives are often a tremendous source of mutual enrichment. However, this richness can only fully flourish when the individuals within a team are able to build a shared understanding.

And perhaps that is where the challenge lies.

How is it, that people who work in English every day, sometimes for years, still struggle to fully understand one another? And above all, why is this topic addressed so rarely?

The first question concerns the level of English required to work in an international environment. We have always maintained that an operational level of English is essential. Yet in most teams we support, the average level is closer to B2 or B2+.

It is as if being able to “get by” in English were sufficient to qualify for an international role.

This inevitably creates differences within teams. Some members operate at around C1 level, while others are only just comfortable with level B2. These gaps have very real consequences, particularly in terms of visibility and influence. Those who feel less confident tend to speak up less often, contribute less spontaneously and therefore participate less in the collective conversation, even though they may have valuable expertise and ideas to share.

Native English speakers can also be concerned by these challenges. Their linguistic ease may sometimes lead them to speak quickly or use idioms and cultural references that are difficult for non-native colleagues to follow. In an international context, simplicity and adaptation to the audience are often more effective than sophisticated language.

Another factor is that some individuals, while highly proficient in English, speak with strong influences from their native language, both in terms of syntax and pronunciation. As a result, they may be difficult to understand for colleagues who do not have the same linguistic background.

But language proficiency does not explain everything.

We also observe that conversations are often highly technical. Acronyms multiply. Specialist terminology accumulates. At times, discussions among experts become so specialised that some participants end up as spectators rather than contributors.

In addition, we often notice fewer informal conversations and personal exchanges within international teams. Yet these are key moments to help build trust, foster mutual understanding and strengthen team cohesion. Research by Rossella Canestrino and her colleagues shows that informal interactions are among the first aspects of communication to be affected when people work in a language other than their native one.

Another dimension is frequently underestimated: the emotional impact.

Speaking in a non-native language requires more energy. Some individuals worry about not finding the right words, being misunderstood or losing credibility. This apprehension can lead to a form of silent self-censorship: speaking less, asking fewer questions and checking understanding less frequently.

Research by Maria-Luisa Weinzierl on multinational teams highlights these mechanisms. Even when individuals possess a strong command of the language, they may still experience frustration, ambiguity, information loss or feelings of exclusion, all of which complicate collaboration.

As if that were not enough, Taibi Kahler demonstrated that under even mild stress, people unconsciously adopt behavioural patterns that influence their language and communication style, creating additional opportunities for misunderstandings.

Finally, these difficulties are often amplified by poor communication habits. We frequently share information without checking whether it has been understood. We express opinions without asking what the other person has heard. We give instructions without ensuring they have been understood and accepted. In other words, we rarely verify that we share the same level of understanding.

This is likely where one of the greatest illusions of international communication is created: because everyone nods, we assume everyone has understood the same thing.

But that is not always the case.

Does this mean it is impossible to work effectively in an international team?

Of course not.

It simply means that a certain level of language proficiency is necessary, but not sufficient. The most effective teams are not necessarily those whose members speak the best English. More often, they are the teams that have learned to build shared understanding despite their linguistic and cultural differences by listening actively, rephrasing and checking comprehension.

The golden rules of communication become even more important when people do not share the same native language.

The good news?

These skills can be learned.

And what if the real challenge was not improving our English, but becoming better at checking whether we have truly understood one another?

Géraldine Berruto