How to set collaboration rules for a team spread across several countries

You can attend a meeting and still have no influence

Teams from Warsaw, Berlin and Toronto join a video conference. People from head office settle matters quickly, while one specialist stays silent because she is still putting her point into words in a second language. After the meeting, it turns out that an important decision overlooks a local client requirement. Everyone had access to the call, but not everyone had the same opportunity to make their case. Time-zone differences, pace, command of the working language and hierarchy can create inequalities even without any ill will. That is why, before an important meeting, you should send out the materials, describe the decision to be made and indicate when comments can be submitted in writing. The person chairing the meeting should not simply ask “Does anyone have any questions?”, but should make sure there is a concrete opportunity to flag risks. When the topic is complex, short written preparation before the meeting often provides a better basis for discussion than an improvised race to answer first. This is not, however, a rule for sudden incidents that require an immediate response.

The working language must not become a test of an employee’s worth

One person speaks fluent English but has a weaker grasp of the operational process. Another needs a little longer to put a sentence together but knows every constraint of the project. If speed of speech becomes the default criterion of competence, important information may go unused. A leader should allow participants to check specialist terms and should collect concerns in writing. When making decisions, it is worth clearly distinguishing opinion from data: “We have a proposal, but before we close it we need confirmation from every location it affects.” A meta-analysis by Stahl and colleagues shows that cultural diversity can increase both the benefits of different perspectives and misunderstandings within a group. The outcome is determined by how people work together and by the context of the task, not by the number of nationalities in the team alone. So rather than imposing one style of speaking on everyone, create a process in which a well-founded argument can be put forward regardless of language fluency.

Six rules that must be visible in everyday work

First, every decision-making meeting has a brief objective and materials available before it starts. Second, everyone knows whether the meeting is for consultation or for approving a solution. Third, concerns can be raised through an agreed channel even after the discussion, as long as the decision has not yet been closed. Fourth, the person responsible for the decision and the way it will be approved are specified. Fifth, the agreement, its basis and the tasks are recorded in one shared place. Sixth, it is clear when receipt of a message must be confirmed and how to flag that a task is at risk. It is worth distinguishing between “I’ve read it”, “I’m taking it on” and “I accept the solution”. These three replies do not mean the same thing. If the rules exist only in a welcome presentation, the team will slip back into old habits within a month. So it is a good idea to turn them into a short checklist used in meetings and in project tools. That takes less energy than working out each time what someone meant.

Meeting times and channels cannot always suit head office

If meetings are always held in the morning Polish time, some colleagues have to start their day very early. If they are scheduled to match working hours on the West Coast of North America, others regularly stay on after work. Over time, an arrangement like this can weaken one location’s involvement, even if nobody talks about discrimination. For recurring meetings, it is worth planning a rotation of inconvenient times, or splitting the discussion into an asynchronous part and shorter live meetings. Take into account local public holidays, agreed working hours and the commitments of people working shifts. At the same time, name the exceptions: a production breakdown or a critical decision may require quick contact outside the usual rhythm, in line with contracts and procedures. Agree which channel is for urgent matters and which is for routine updates. Don’t expect immediate replies to questions that are not urgent. Without this boundary, digital tools create a sense of being permanently on call, even though nobody formally planned it.

What to do when an important concern arises after a decision has been made

A common reaction from head office is: “Why didn’t you say so in the meeting?” Yet the concern may only have emerged after checking local data or talking to a client. Instead of penalising people for when they raise an issue, first establish what is now known and how it affects the decision that was made. Ask: “Does this change the safety conditions, the cost, compliance or the deadline?” If it does, a correction or fresh approval may be necessary. It is also worth checking whether there was a real opportunity to comment earlier. The participant may not have seen the agenda, may have had too little time, or may have wrongly assumed the decision had already been closed. Agree on a clear point at which a decision is given final approval and a channel for reporting facts after that point. It helps to distinguish a change of opinion from the discovery of new information. This approach does not cancel out accountability for deadlines, but it means the team does not have to choose between loyalty to the plan and the quality of the decision.

After a month, judge the rules by specific examples, not by declarations

At the first review, take two or three real decisions and trace the path each one followed. Did all the locations that needed to see the data actually see it? Was it clear who was responsible for the final choice? Was important information missed because of the time or channel of the meeting? Was it clear who was responsible for each task, and were delays reported in time? A meta-analysis of debriefs by Tannenbaum and Cerasoli shows an average benefit from structured reflection, but it does not guarantee results in every international team. The practical conclusion is simple: it is worth checking how the rules worked in a real situation, rather than assessing whether everyone has signed a document. If one location is still regularly working late or its comments keep getting lost, improve the rule. Collaboration rules should be stable enough to provide predictability, and flexible enough to allow real problems to be fixed.

Working across several countries requires clear access to information and transparent decisions. What matters most are the rules for preparing meetings, raising comments, confirming responsibility and sharing inconveniences fairly. It is better to measure how well they work with real examples than to judge people by national stereotypes.

How Em helps you agree working rules for an international team

Anna runs a project involving three locations. After the last video conference, the team from one of them said they hadn’t known the decision was already final. Anna describes to Em how the meeting went, how agreements are recorded and the differences in working hours. She asks for help preparing a conversation in which nobody will be accused of a lack of commitment. Em helps her separate out the communication problems: no agenda, a lack of clarity about whether the decision had been approved and no confirmation from the people carrying out the work. Anna rehearses the sentence: “I’d like us to establish at what point we treated the plan as approved, and how that should work next time.” She also prepares a proposal for rotating meeting times and for a shared note to which comments can be added before a decision is closed. If the team uses the insights into collaboration styles available in Empatyzer, they can discuss the real differences in expectations. After the meeting, they agree six rules and a date for the first review. Em helps her prepare this conversation so that every location has real influence over the outcome.