Why ‘speak up more’ isn’t enough for Vietnamese teams in Western companies?

They prepare more before meetings. They push themselves to share opinions. They try to say “yes” or “no” more directly and become more proactive.

On paper, they are doing exactly what they have been told.

And yet, something still feels uncomfortable.

After meetings, I often hear: “I’m not sure if I said too much.” “I don’t know if that was the right moment to speak.” “I shared my opinion, but I’m not sure how it was received.”

So next time, they hesitate again.

Two reasonable perspectives, one invisible gap

One Vietnamese team member working with an American manager once told me:

“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 point. And that is exactly the problem.

For many Western managers, speaking up signals engagement. Sharing your own ideas demonstrates ownership. Challenging a proposal is a contribution to making it better.

Underneath this is what we might call an individual contribution logic: put your thinking on the table, even if it is not completely formed yet. Disagreement does not necessarily threaten the relationship. You can challenge my idea and still work well with me afterward, even if I am a boss.

A Vietnamese employee may be operating with another logic at the same time: relational harmony. Before speaking, consider hierarchy, face, relationships, timing and how your words may affect the group members.

Speaking too early can therefore feel risky. Challenging someone directly, particularly someone senior, can feel uncomfortable. Presenting an incomplete thought can seem to risk your credibility.

Neither logic is inherently right or wrong.

Vietnamese communication norms have costs, too. Indirectness can allow problems to remain hidden. Deference to hierarchy can delay necessary escalation. A preference for harmony can prevent disagreement that a team actually needs.

I have heard expats’ complain often, “My team members do not report bad news to me at all!” Or “They are not proactive and do not have initiative.” Or “People just say Yes all the time.”

The issue is that “speak up” sounds like a simple, culturally neutral instruction when it contains many invisible assumptions.

It often really means: Speak up early. Be explicit. State your individual view. Be prepared to disagree. And do it even when your thinking is not yet complete.

Suddenly, the discomfort makes more sense.

Whose definition of “good communication”?

This is where HR departments often step in.

When Vietnamese employees appear hesitant to speak, give feedback or raise problems, the usual response is communication skills training. Such courses can be genuinely valuable, teaching people how to structure messages, distinguish facts from assumptions, clarify responsibilities and communicate problems more clearly and effectively.

But there is another question companies rarely ask:

“Whose definition of ‘good communication’ are we teaching?”

Instructions such as be clear, raise issues early, take ownership and challenge ideas sound universal. Yet each carries cultural assumptions about directness, hierarchy, individual accountability and what is considered appropriate in a professional relationship.

None of this makes Western communication standards wrong. It simply means they are cultural rather than culturally neutral.

That is why communication training and intercultural training serve different purposes. Communication training helps people communicate more clearly. Intercultural training begins by helping people understand “why” colleagues from different cultural backgrounds interpret the same behavior differently – and then helps both sides adapt their communication in ways that work across those differences (“how”).

Culture is an ecosystem, not a checklist

We often approach culture through dos and don’ts.

Speak up more. Be more direct. Challenge ideas. Be ready to disagree.

Or, on the other side: Vietnamese people communicate indirectly. Pay attention to face. Saying No explicitly is not very polite and can embarrass others. Don't expect them to challenge the boss.

But culture is not a checklist. It is an ecosystem of shared values.

Power distance (hierarchy vs equalitarianism), relationship orientation vs task orientation, collective harmony vs individualism, and different communication styles interact with one another. Trying to change one visible behavior without understanding what sits underneath it is rather like painting the leaves of a dying tree green instead of watering the roots.

Employees may learn the expected behavior while remaining uncertain about when it is safe or appropriate to use it.

And that uncertainty has a performance cost.

Good ideas stay unspoken. Capable employees can be perceived as lacking initiative. Managers become frustrated about ownership. Problems may surface too late. Trust can gradually erode on both sides.

A global trend HR leaders should not ignore

This matters increasingly because 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.

They may not cross a national border. Their work crosses several every day.

The 2025 Intercultural Landscape Survey by NetExpat, based on responses from more than 750 organizations worldwide, reflects this reality. Ninety-six percent of the respondents considered cultural agility critical, while more than 60 percent identified effective communication as a major intercultural challenge and almost 40 percent highlighted trust-building.

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.

That leaves a remarkable gap.

We prepare foreigners to understand local cultures while often expecting local employees to navigate global corporate cultures through general communication courses.

From understanding WHY to finding a shared HOW

Understanding cultural differences is not the finish line.

A Western manager can understand why Vietnamese employees hesitate. Vietnamese employees can understand why their manager expects more direct contribution. But awareness alone does not make the team work better.

The next step is alignment.

What does “good contribution” mean in this particular team? Are unfinished ideas welcome? When should concerns be raised? How should employees disagree with senior people? How direct should feedback be? How will ideas be evaluated once someone speaks up?

These expectations need to become visible rather than remain culturally assumed.

The goal is not to turn Vietnamese employees into Western communicators. Nor is it to ask Western managers simply to adopt Vietnamese communication norms.

It is to help both sides understand the cultural logic behind the other’s behavior (“why”) and then build a shared way of working (“how”) – one that allows individual contribution without unnecessarily sacrificing relational harmony.

For HR leaders, this distinction matters. If a Vietnamese team has completed communication training yet still hesitates to speak up, the answer may not be another communication technique.

The missing layer may be intercultural training.

Because in a global workplace, effective communication is not only about learning how to speak more clearly.

It is also about understanding why “clear,” “proactive,” “respectful” and even “speaking up” do not necessarily mean the same thing to everyone in the room.

* Hana Bui is an intercultural trainer and consultant specializing in Vietnam and mainland Southeast Asia, and the author of “When Global Meets Local: From the Expat Culture Shock to Thriving in Vietnam.”