Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Today, we're unpacking
a tension that is quietly simmering inside almost
every organization, especially those relying
on global and hybrid teams. We're going deep
on the, well, the rapidly shifting sands of global
etiquette and what professionalism even means
in 2026. It really is a fascinating area, isn't
it? Because the rules were being rewritten. you
know, in real time. Right. If you asked 50 different
companies for their definition of professionalism,
you'd probably get 50 different answers. It feels
like organizations are struggling to just keep
the lights on and maintain some order while also
trying to be. flexible and authentic and global.
Absolutely. And the sources we've pulled for
this deep dive, they're actually structured like
a debate. It's really interesting. It forces
us to argue two very potent sides of one big
question. And that question is? Has global etiquette
changed too much, you know, leading to chaos,
or has it actually not changed enough, which
is leading to exclusion? And the forces behind
all this, they're not subtle at all. We're talking
about the huge shift to hybrid work or some people
are in a room and others are just you know Little
squares on the screen. Yeah, plus you've got
global teams spread across every time zone huge
generational shifts in communication AI sneaking
into everything we do and of course just daily
cultural collisions in every single email and
slack channel So our mission today is to really
distill the core arguments from both camps. On
one hand, you have this very strong case that
standards have become way too relaxed, too subjective,
basically optional. Right. And on the other hand,
you have the counter argument that's just as
strong that the rigid rules we're still clinging
to are just relics. They're exclusionary to anyone
who doesn't fit that. historic dominant mold.
What's so interesting here is that both sides
they're rooted in what people are actually experiencing
at work. I mean if you've ever felt that confusion
that should I use dear sir or just hey then you
know exactly what we're talking about. Exactly.
So let's start by breaking down that first argument.
The very real cost of all this informality. Okay
let's unpack that. The core idea from this first
camp is that Global etiquette has changed way
too much and way too fast. In this big rush to
be flexible and authentic, we've basically just
lost clarity. And that lack of clarity is actually
damaging business. That loss of clarity, that's
the central danger, according to this side of
the argument. When your standards become all
inconsistent and subjective, you get these immediate
practical problems that cost you time and, more
importantly, trust. Right, because once those
professional boundaries get blurry, the rules
aren't shared expectations anymore. They're just
personal preferences. So one person's authenticity
in an email could easily come across to a colleague
from another culture as, I don't know, gross
disrespect, or even incompetence. And without
those shared expectations, especially these really
complex global projects, misunderstandings don't
just happen. They, like, multiply. So the sources
ground this in some real -world examples, right?
Yeah. They point to some very specific concrete
things, causing real friction. Think about that
super casual emoji -filled email tone that's
become standard in a lot of places. For sure.
Or the fact that it's now normal for meetings
to start five, 10 minutes late with just a quick
sorry running behind in the chat. No real apology.
What about the disappearance of professional
titles? I mean, dropping titles can feel really
democratic, right? But in some very hierarchical
business cultures, I'm thinking Japan, Germany,
a lot of Latin America, failing to use a title
for a senior leader isn't seen as modern. It's
seen as a major lapse in respect. And that can
damage a relationship before it even gets off
the ground. Exactly. And then there's the big
one, the total confusion around dress code. The
sources use this great example. Imagine a global
team video call. OK. The US team is all in hoodies
and baseball caps because their office is super
relaxed. Right. But the team from the Asian subsidiary.
They're in full business form aware because for
their culture, any client facing call requires
maximum respect. So everyone feels awkward. Totally.
Both teams are following a rule, but the collision
of those standards just creates this visual dissonance
and judgment. You start wondering, am I... underdressed
overdressed am i sending the wrong signal here
and this camp argues that while these things
seem small the uh the cumulative effect on trust
is actually huge so here's the so what here the
analysis while informality might feel modern
and flexible the underlying cost is confusion
when etiquette becomes optional the sources say
that trust just It quietly erodes. Because you
can't rely on a shared structure. Exactly. If
I can't be sure you'll be on time, or that your
communication will be clear, or that you'll respect
my title, then I have to constantly second -guess
your commitment. Wait, but couldn't you argue
that's just lazy management? or maybe a failure
to train people properly on global teamwork?
Are we confusing a loss of respect with just,
you know, not knowing how to use Slack properly?
That's a great question. And the sources see
it coming. They argue that structure itself is
a form of respect, especially in high stakes,
cross -cultural or hierarchical situations. They
say that by getting rid of these guardrails,
we've created something you could call a respect
debt. You spend all this mental energy just trying
to figure out what the other person means, and
that cost, that debt, it makes collaboration
harder, not easier. So the drive for authenticity
has kind of ironically created ambiguity, which
is the exact opposite of what a high -functioning
global team needs. Precisely. For this group,
structure and respect still matter, and we've
stripped away too much. OK. Now let's pivot and
look at the flip side, which argues we haven't
changed nearly enough. And this is where the
tension gets really, really sharp. Because if
that first side is arguing for more clarity,
more structure, the second side is basically
saying those very structures are the source of
exclusion and inequality. That's it, exactly.
The core point from the second view is that far
too many workplaces are still enforcing these
rigid rules that were designed for a world that
just doesn't exist anymore. A nine to five, everyone
in the same office, same culture kind of world.
Right. And that rigidity, they argue, is actively
hurting diversity, progress, and even psychological
safety. So what are some of those specific rigid
expectations that are seen as the problem? It's
mostly about two things. Communication style
and this idea of performance visibility. OK.
Think about the unspoken rule. that quick, direct,
short communication is always the best way. You
know that rapid fire style that's common in some
Western country? No, I get to the point. That
style actively penalizes people from cultures
that prioritize high context communication, nuance,
and building a relationship before you get down
to business, like many Asian and Nordic cultures.
And the visibility thing, that's tied into that,
I imagine. Directly. That old poxic rule. If
you're not physically seen in the office, or
if you're not answering every email instantly,
you must not be working hard. Which is just impossible
on a global asynchronous team. It makes zero
sense. If you force someone in Singapore to be
on every mandatory call scheduled for New York
at 8 a .m., you're actively damaging their health
and their performance. The rigidity of that time
structure is itself an etiquette failure. And
the sources really dig into the history here,
saying this wasn't neutral. Traditional etiquette
was often a code of conduct that really favored
one dominant culture. One dominant, often white?
Western, male, and neurotypical communication
style became the default for what professional
means. And by clinging to those old rules, we
ignore these critical modern realities, we ignore
cultural differences, and we ignore neurodiversity.
Let's pause on neurodiversity for a second, because
that's a huge piece of this. Yeah, what does
that mean in terms of these professional rules?
It means we have to recognize that a big chunk
of the workforce, people with conditions like
autism, ADHD, dyslexia, they just operate differently.
Okay. So a rigid expectation, like demanding
constant eye contact in a meeting or pushing
for rapid fire unstructured brainstorming can
be actively harmful or just exhausting for a
neurodiverse colleague. So etiquette that insists
on that is basically exclusionary. It is. It
penalizes competence just because the presentation
style doesn't fit the old mold. So the argument
then is that modern etiquette shouldn't be about
enforcing a single set of rules. It's about maximizing
inclusion by making space for different styles.
Exactly. The goal isn't rule enforcement. It's
creating expectations that support psychological
safety. That feeling that you can show up and
speak up without being punished for being different.
Right. Modern etiquette should support inclusion
and clarity, but... And this is key. Without
forcing everyone into the exact same professional
box, it demands adaptability, empathy, and context
over everything else. And that's a huge distinction,
moving from just blindly following rules to intentional
adaptable behavior. So just enforcing a rule
like all client emails must be formal might actually
be less professional than adapting your tone.
Precisely. You have to think about the recipient,
the medium, the culture, the goal. The modern
professional has to be a master of context. So,
okay, we've laid out two incredibly strong and
seemingly opposite arguments. One says we need
more rules to get our structure back. The other
says the old structures are the problem and we
need to tear them down. Right. But this is where
the synthesis comes in and where the sources
show these two sides actually find some profound
agreement. And that moment of agreement is so
important because it reveals the problem isn't
etiquette itself, old or new. The real issue
is the profound fragmentation of our expectations.
It's a massive lack of shared understanding about
what the rules even are right now. So etiquette
hasn't disappeared, it's just shattered. It's
fragmented, yeah. Along lines of generation,
culture, geography, personal style, you have
everyone using the exact same tools. The same
Zoom meetings, the same email inboxes, the same
Slack channels, but they're all using completely
different rule books. It's like everyone is speaking
a slightly different dialect of professionalism,
but assuming their dialect is the universal language.
That's a perfect analogy. And that's why the
debate is so heated. Both sides feel completely
justified in their frustration. And if fragmentation
is the root cause, then the sources say the new
essential skill isn't mastering a set of rules,
it's developing a kind of radical awareness.
Awareness is everything. It shifts the focus
from knowing the rigid rules to knowing the context.
So you have to know when to adapt your own behavior
to meet someone else's expectation of respect.
And, just as importantly, when you need to be
the one to step up and lead with absolute clarity
to set a new inclusive expectation for the whole
group. But wait, that sounds exhausting. Are
we saying the modern professional needs to be
like a cultural anthropologist just to schedule
a meeting? How do we even develop this awareness?
It is demanding, for sure, but it's kind of the
price of admission for global competence now.
The sources talk about three main ways. First
is observational listening. Okay, what's that?
Instead of jumping right into a new team or culture,
you just hang back and observe first. Watch how
others communicate pace, tone, formality. Intentional
inquiry. When you're in doubt, you just ask.
Explicitly. You ask, hey, what does urgent actually
mean on this team? Or what's our standard for
response time here? Just make the implicit explicit.
Okay, and the third one. Strategic code switching.
This is about consciously deciding which dialect
of professionalism to use based on who you're
talking to and what you want to achieve. So you
might be super informal and authentic with your
own team. Right. But when you're emailing a C
-suite executive and a culture that you know
values formal deference, You switch to a more
formal high -context tone. It's an active choice,
not just following a rule book. This is a huge
shift. We're moving from etiquette as the static
thing you learn once to etiquette as a dynamic
skill you have to constantly manage and refine.
You have to have some humility, yeah? Yeah. And
recognize that your own default setting is probably
wrong at least half the time. And organizations
that get this, they're the ones who are creating
bridges between these different dialects. They
don't just assume everyone knows what professionalism
means. They create clarity by actually talking
about it. So, let's bring this all back to a
final takeaway for you, our listener. Global
etiquette today, it's not about clinging to old
rules, but it's also not about demanding total
freedom to just do whatever you want. No, it
requires intentional behavior. The intentional
professional doesn't just fire off an email.
They pause and ask, what three things do I know
about this person's background that should probably
change my tone? You have to strive for clear
expectations and make sure that respect is a
standard that can travel across every platform,
every culture you deal with. The organizational
challenge here is huge. The companies that are
going to thrive are the ones that stop assuming
professionalism is universal. Instead, they choose
to learn. They discuss these tensions openly,
and they intentionally evolve their standards.
They move from these unwritten, often exclusionary,
rules to written, inclusive guidelines that put
psychological safety and clarity first. They
define what their shared expectations are for
their unique workforce. Which brings us to a
final question for you to think about this week.
We started by asking if global etiquette has
changed too much or not enough. And the fascinating
conclusion from all this material seems to be
that the answer might just be both. The structures
that really needed to change haven't changed
fast enough, which has left a lot of workplaces
feeling rigid and exclusive. But at the same
time, that general... unchecked drift toward
informality has created this dangerous ambiguity
and eroded trust. And it's that dynamic tension,
right? That space between too much rigidity and
too much subjectivity. That's exactly why this
conversation and developing your own radical
awareness matters more now than it ever has before.
That's the deep dive for today. Now go forth.
Pause before you click send and try to be intentionally
aware in your next communication. We'll see you
next time.