Misunderstandings are not always about what people say. They are often about what people think they hear—and in public policy and administration, those moments can shape how decisions are carried out. In cross-cultural settings, small differences in language, tone or expectation can quietly influence how people understand one another. A new book by School of Public Policy Lecturer Bagher Fardanesh looks at what causes misunderstandings across cultures, and how easily small differences can lead to them.
In “Misunderstandings in Cross-Cultural Communications,” Fardanesh examines how communication breaks down across cultural contexts and why it matters. He shows that misunderstandings are not always the result of poor communication. More often, they come from differences in how people signal agreement, interpret meaning and navigate social expectations. “Public organizations, like private ones, have two main types of stakeholders: internal and external,” Fardanesh said. “Cultural differences in communication can lead to misunderstandings.”
The connection shows up clearly in his teaching. In PLCY689X: Performance Management - Leading for Results, Fardanesh teaches students how to improve program outcomes in complex systems, where agencies work across organizations and rely on outside partners. In that kind of environment, misunderstandings can affect how work gets done, how people work together and whether programs succeed.
Fardanesh highlights a common scenario: a manager from a culture where communication is direct assigns a task to a colleague from a more indirect, high-context culture. The colleague appears to agree, but the wording signals hesitation rather than commitment. What sounds like a clear “yes” may, in context, be a polite refusal.
Collaboration across agencies, sectors and countries often depends on shared expectations about how work should begin and move forward. When those expectations differ, trust can start to erode. “In low-context settings, efficiency and directness tend to drive collaboration,” Fardanesh said. “In contrast, high-context cultures place greater emphasis on building trust, relationships and mutual understanding before substantive work begins.”
When those approaches clash, one group may see the other as uncommitted, while the other sees a lack of respect. Over time, that can slow progress and weaken outcomes.
For students preparing for careers in public policy and public administration, understanding those differences matters. Fardanesh points to the Self-Reference Criterion, a concept introduced in 1966 by James Lee, which describes the unconscious tendency to interpret others’ behavior through one’s own cultural lens. That instinct shapes how people read tone, language, body language and even personal space. When it goes unchecked, it can lead to misjudgments about professionalism, intent or ability.
Developing self-awareness and cultural sensitivity, said Fardanesh, can help future policymakers communicate more effectively and work across differences. Misunderstandings are not always avoidable. They are shaped by cultural norms, decision-making pressures and levels of trust within organizations. What matters is how people respond—recognizing when communication has broken down and taking the time to understand why.
