E. Ramirez Auckland University of Technology

Ineke Hendrika Martine Crezee Auckland University of Technology

Elba Ramirez
Senior lecturer and programme leader for international studies at the School of Social Sciences and Public Policy (Te Wānanga Aronui o Tāmaki Makau Rau), Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand.

The head of legal affairs and sustainability at a Finnish mobile device manufacturer oversees responsibilities related to governance, ethics, and long-term impact. The company emerged after taking over a well-known mobile phone business in the mid-2010s and operates as a global organization with a presence in more than 150 countries, serving highly diverse markets across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas.

The company’s mission is strongly rooted in huma-centric values, which are most of it is inherited from the company’s organizational culture. These values include respect for the individual, fairness, inclusiveness, diversity, and adherence to human rights principles. According to the interviewee, these values are reflected not only in internal company culture but also in how they conduct business globally, for example, through ethical manufacturing, protection of personal data, and providing affordable mobile devices for different socioeconomic groups.

Intercultural communication plays a crucial role in organization’s daily operations. He highlights that Finnish communication tends to be very direct, which can be effective internally but may be perceived as rude or confrontational in other cultures, especially Asian contexts where politeness, hierarchy, and indirect communication are more valued.

Hofstede Dimensions

Power distance refers to how much hierarchy and unequal power are accepted in a culture. The organization reflects a low power distance culture, influenced by Finnish and Nordic values, where leadership is democratic, and everyone is encouraged to share ideas. In contrast, many Asian mostly Chinese) operate with high power distance, where decisions are made by senior leaders, questioning authority is uncommon (Hofstede et al., 2010).  This contrast has led to misunderstandings in cross-cultural interactions, particularly when his direct communication style was interpreted as disrespectful or as causing someone to “lose face”.

Their culture emphasizes respect for the individual and personal responsibility, aligning with individualistic cultures common in Europe. Employees are encouraged to express their opinions openly. However, in more collectivist cultures, such as those in Asia and Africa, maintaining group harmony and relationships is more important than direct disagreement. This requires a more indirect and careful communication style (Hegerova, 2024).

The organization demonstrates moderate to high uncertainty avoidance through its focus on clear legal frameworks, NDA, and bilingual contracts. However,  in some Asian markets, such formal legal protections are not always standard practice, and business relationships may rely more on trust and long-term relationships rather than formal legal structures, requiring HMD to adapt its processes. For example, the use of an NDA is not really common in China for the counterparties.

Finland is considered a feminine culture, valuing cooperation, equality, and quality of life. This is reflected in HMD’s focus on inclusiveness, fairness, work-life balance, and consensus-based leadership. A leadership approach that prioritizes collaboration and diverse perspectives aligns closely with this cultural dimension  (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Lastly, the company demonstrates a long-term orientation, shown through long-term contracts and a strong focus on sustainability. This aligns well with many Asian cultures that value long-term relationships. However, the interview also highlights that legal systems may vary by region. For example, Legal systems in Europe and India are generally more independent and predictable, whereas legal disputes involving large Chinese companies can be extremely difficult due to the close ties between companies and government institutions  (Hofstede et al., 2010.

Figure 1: Hofstedes Dimenssions (Country Comparison – Culture in the WorkplaceTM, n.d.)

Outcome

The interview suggests that the intercultural problems faced by the organization stem from differences in communication approaches and expectations regarding hierarchy, rather than from issues of respect and professionalism. Finland is known for direct and task-oriented communication. This is actually more common in low-power-distance situations. However, direct communication may be viewed as “too harsh and even disrespectful,” especially when addressing a person higher in the hierarchy, and there is a danger of “losing face,” as found in some Asian cultures (Hofstede et al., 2010).

The second result is that the legal approach to the company’s operations demonstrates the company’s strategy to avoid uncertainty through the use of formal contracts, agreements, and non-disclosure agreements. Interviewee argues that in other markets, the formal approach may not be the norm at the beginning of a cooperation, as market engagement is often based on trust and relationship-building. If the strategies are divergent, negotiations can take a long time and be challenging.

In conclusion, to communicate effectively across cultures in the company, one must strike a balance between clarity and cultural sensitivity, including the tone of legal and ethical standards and the style of feedback.

Possible solutions

Thus, the organization can facilitate easier intercultural collaboration by adopting effective behaviours to avoid confusion without compromising laws and regulations. For effective collaboration, a quick pre-task cultural scan should be conducted before engaging in crucial conversations to recognise the other party’s cultural background and communication patterns, particularly focusing on the context, whether it is a low- or a high-context situation, to ensure an effective and compatible initial engagement and response to the other party’s expectations and behaviours (EBSCO, n.d.; FutureLearn, n.d.). For a more effective and non-confrontational engagement in a face-sensitive and high-context situation, it is essential to avoid confusion and bluntness in corrections and criticisms by asking instead, “Do we want to adjust the way?” and “Could we explore another way?” rather than bluntly saying “Don’t do it” and “Change it,” considering that different cultures have different feedback expectations and blunt corrections could damage the relationship and collaboration process (Meyer, 2014). To avoid confusion and misunderstanding, a clarity-check process is required after calls and emails, rather than assuming understanding, by confirming understanding with a quick, easy-to-understand statement and ensuring clarity through a series of basic lines and phrases (EBSCO, n.d.).

Two other elements can be helpful in a hierarchical/relationship-first context: aligning the meeting processes with the level of the hierarchy being addressed and making the authority in decisions explicit, as power distance can influence who can speak up in a discussion or make decisions in a timely fashion, which can hinder progress on a case (Hofstede, n.d.). If the early formal legal approach seems inappropriate in some context, consider a staged approach in which a less formal initial agreement is used before proceeding to detailed contracts as trust is built in the relationship, in part because this can facilitate accommodation without “losing oneself” or compromising one’s standards in the process (Molinsky, 2013).

References

Country Comparison – Culture in the WorkplaceTM. (n.d.). Culture in the WorkplaceTM. https://cultureinworkplace.com/country-comparison-dashboard/?ode-country-selected=FI,CN,DE,JP,US

EBSCO. (n.d.). High-context and low-context cultures. EBSCO Research Starters. Retrieved January 23, 2026, from https://www.ebsco.com/

FutureLearn. (n.d.). What is high-context and low-context culture? Retrieved January 23, 2026, from https://www.futurelearn.com/

Hegerova, Z. (2024, November 28). Building relationships in collectivist workplaces. Headroom Mental Health. https://headroom.co.za/building-relationships-in-collectivist-workplaces/

Hofstede, G. (n.d.). The 6-D model of national culture. Geert Hofstede. Retrieved January 23, 2026, from https://geerthofstede.com/

Meyer, E. (2014, February 25). How to say “This is crap” in different cultures. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/how-to-say-this-is-crap-in-different-cultures

Molinsky, A. (2013, March 12). When crossing cultures, use global dexterity. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/03/when-crossing-cult

Authors

Students:Block 2, Semester 1, 25-01-2026

Alma Eekhout Conde, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/alma-eekhout-conde-5b22021b5/)

Karlo Koljonen, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/karlo-koljonen-626478390/)

Aisha Mohamed, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/aisha-mohamed-208545257/)

Dain Yoon, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/dainyoon/)

Yianna Reinking: (www.linkedin.com/in/yianna-reinking)

The company is a part of a global hospitality industry that delivers high-quality service and fosters a diverse and inclusive culture. The hotel located in The Netherlands is a destination for both business travelers, tourists and guests who come from a wide range of countries across Europe and from all around the world. Due to the diverse backgrounds, not all clients are fluent in English, which is mainly used in communication between the staff and guests. Many guests rely on basic English, gestures or support from multilingual staff to express their needs. As a result, cultural differences in communication styles and expectations of service vary depending on the customer, which creates challenges for the company.

The company’s vision is to be the first choice when it comes to guests who value genuine hospitality, and its mission is to provide an excellent service and create memorable experiences for guests from diverse cultural backgrounds. Additionally, the company has a clear hierarchical structure in which strategic decisions and cultural initiatives are led by senior management. Nevertheless, there are potential misunderstandings related to hierarchy and stress at work because both the individual personality and cultural background of the employees affect how they respond to stress and instructions.

Hofstede Dimensions

Cultural differences in the organization can be explained by Hofstede’s dimensions of value, given that employees of different cultures work in the organization. Cultural differences affect communication, organizational structure, responsibility, and handling stress at work. In a service-oriented context, differences will directly influence decisions and work performance, as well as how employees relate to their work personally.

Power Distance Index can be observed through how workers react to management and instructions. Some workers may want clear instructions from management, while others may want to be left alone to act on their own. Such differences may lead to how decisions are executed, especially when it is busy. On the other hand, it may lead to how workers are either empowered or limited by management.

Individualism versus Collectivism is reflected in the degree to which the team-working style is preferred over the individual working style. Whereas some workers would thrive on frequent communication, others would work better on their own. This directly influences task delegation and ownership. A blend of the two will help to ensure proper decision-making.

Uncertainty Avoidance is a factor in how workers react to pressure, to unforeseen changes and to stressful situations. While some workers are composed and methodical in their behavior in such situations, others may feel increased levels of stress or act on instinct. It is because of culture that workers behave in this way. To mitigate this effect, supervisors provide workers with clear instructions and systematic procedures, especially in handovers.

Differences related to Masculinity versus Femininity are found in the way people communicate. Some employees are very direct and task-oriented while others are very polite and indirect. Such differences can result in misunderstandings due to different styles of communication. Supervisors can be aware of these differences and change their own communication styles to facilitate respect and easy decision-making.

Long-term orientation is expressed through operational methods such as structured handovers, written lists of tasks, and documentation. Such methods prioritize continuity with a focus on long-term optimization instead of short-term problem-solving. This is very helpful for intercultural collaboration because it avoids reliance on implicit assumptions. Overall, Hofstede’s Value Dimensions are a good means of explaining how values affect behavior in an organization.

Figure 1: Hofstedes Dimenssions: https://cultureinworkplace.com/country-comparison-dashboard/

Outcome

In the Front Office team, the main intercultural communication issue is that the same message can be understood differently because of language level, communication style, and hidden cultural norms. English is the shared working language, but for most staff it is not their first language, which increases misunderstandings – especially when information is technical or must be transferred quickly. The interviewee explains that these differences become most visible during shift handovers, complaint handling, and emergency situations, because time pressure makes small misunderstandings more serious. Direct versus indirect communication adds another layer: some colleagues communicate very directly while others are more indirect, which can create confusion until people learn each other’s styles. Using Hall’s Iceberg Model, the visible part is the style (direct/indirect), but underneath are values about respect, hierarchy, and what is considered appropriate at work. Because of these hidden norms, communication can become inhibitive (people hesitate to clarify or speak up) and sometimes feel almost prohibitive (people feel they “cannot” question decisions due to cultural expectations).

Possible solutions

The solutions should reduce inhibitive silence and make shared meaning explicit. The interviewee already uses practical strategies like speaking slowly, using simple English, and showing examples. A stronger team-level approach is to standardize communication in critical moments: short confirmation loops, clear handover routines, and written checklists that everyone uses across shifts. This improves clarity and reduces uncertainty. Another solution is to agree on a shared feedback and escalation style, so directness is used for clarity but stays respectful, and indirectness is not interpreted as incompetence. Finally, inclusion improves when language support and development opportunities are transparent, because language barriers can otherwise indirectly limit access to certain roles and responsibilities.

Authors:

Students: International Business Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

Julia Szewczyk (https://www.linkedin.com)

João Pedro Lamas Paulino (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jo%C3%A3o-paulino-5976b6144/)

Quỳnh Nguyễn (http://linkedin.com/in/quỳnh-trâm-nguyễn-478ba8208)

Caesardo Diaz Afriansyah (https://www.linkedin.com)

Denys Shukhat (https://www.linkedin.com/in/denys-shukhat)

Mees Camoenie (https://www.linkedin.com/in/mees-camoeni%C3%A9-73a4a9386?trk=contact-info)

Excerpt

This case model examines how cultural differences influence communication and collaboration within a multicultural hospitality organisation, based on an interview with a staff member working in an international service environment. The case highlights how variations in directness, feedback styles, and expectations can lead to subtle misunderstandings between staff and guests. By applying intercultural communication theories, the analysis demonstrates how awareness of cultural norms can reduce inhibitive communication and support more effective teamwork and service quality in an international workplace

The organisation operates in a multicultural work environment, employing international staff and welcoming guests from Europe, North America, and the Caribbean. This makes it a suitable case for examining how cultural differences influence communication, teamwork, and decision-making in an international hospitality setting.

Interview Focus

Main question:

How do cultural differences affect communication and collaboration between staff and guests?

Key Interview Excerpt

“People interpret tone and feedback differently. I come from Curaçao, where communication is direct, but someone from Thailand may experience this as rude, even if that’s not the intention.”  Short Analysis

Communication is not forbidden, but direct feedback can make others uncomfortable, depending on cultural background.

Different communication styles reflect cultural values, supporting Weaver’s view that meaning depends on interpretation, not just words. 

Cultural Impact

• Misunderstandings can affect teamwork and feedback moments
• Guests from different cultures show different expectations and complaint styles
• Staff adapt communication through experience and awareness

Cultural problem 

The intercultural problem that emerges from the interview is a subtle issue that operates largely below the surface of everyday communication. Although employees use the same working language, they do not always share the same communication culture, which leads to misunderstandings. A central element of this problem is the difference between high-context and low-context communication. Some employees communicate directly, using a firm tone and explicit feedback. Others rely on more indirect communication, where meaning is conveyed through tone, body language, and the relationship, and where maintaining harmony is an important social norm. In this context, direct feedback can feel rude or personally confrontational, even when the intention is supportive. This results in inhibitive communication, where individuals withdraw, speak up less, or reduce participation in team discussions.

A similar pattern appears in interactions with guests. For some guests, openly expressing complaints is normal and seen as part of good service. For others, complaining feels socially inhibitive, as it may conflict with values related to politeness, gratitude, or avoiding confrontation.  

This issue is not prohibitive, as no formal rules restrict communication. Instead, it is shaped by unspoken norms and social values that define what feels appropriate or respectful. These norms lie below the waterline of the cultural iceberg and strongly influence daily interaction. At its core, the problem stems from the assumption that one’s own communication style is neutral and universal. In reality, communication is culturally situated, and mismatches in style can lead to misjudgement without any harmful intent. Rather than appearing as open conflict, the problem manifests in small misunderstandings and gradual withdrawal, which over time affect cooperation, trust, and effectiveness in the workplace.

Hofstede Dimensions

Within the organisation, cultural “programming” is evident in all interactions. The internal staff dynamic highlights a fascinating contrast between individualism and collectivism. “High-context” Thai employees prioritise group harmony and “saving face” through a softer communication style, whereas “low-context” Curaçaoan staff express themselves more directly and individually. To avoid causing friction, the resort employs a low Power Distance strategy: while the owner has final say, employees are encouraged to generate ideas. This is supported by their “English-only” best practice, which acts as a cultural equaliser, ensuring that no “in-groups” or “out-groups” form based on language, resulting in a “Feminine” organisational culture centred on inclusion and mutual respect.

Externally, the resort must deal with varying levels of uncertainty avoidance among its guests. American travelers frequently exhibit high urgency, a desire to control the             “unknowns” of their trip, whereas Dutch visitors exhibit lower uncertainty avoidance, often using humor to navigate service hiccups. The most difficult challenge, however, is the       “silent” Caribbean visitor. Their reluctance to

complain is typical of high-context, collectivist behavior, in which maintaining “social peace” is more important than individual dissatisfaction.

By proactively checking in with these guests and implementing a Long-Term Orientation, the resort protects its reputation and ensures guest loyalty. This strategic adaptation, replicated by global leaders such as Marriott, demonstrates that success in a multicultural environment    requires “shifting” one’s own dimensions to meet the cultural expectations of the guest.

Outcome

The outcome of this case study demonstrates that intercultural communication within the organisation is not primarily disrupted by open conflict, but by subtle mismatches in communication styles and unspoken cultural norms. Through the interview and analysis, it becomes clear that differences in directness, feedback styles, and expectations strongly influence how employees and guests interpret behavior. These differences often lead to inhibitive communication, where individuals withdraw, speak less openly, or hesitate to express concerns, rather than to visible confrontation.

By applying theoretical frameworks such as the cultural iceberg model, high and low. context communication, and Hofstede’s dimensions, the analysis shows that awareness is a key factor in reducing misunderstandings. When employees recognize that their own communication style is culturally shaped rather than universal, they become more capable of adjusting their behavior to different colleagues and guests. This awareness supports psychological safety within teams and improves service quality by ensuring that guest dissatisfaction is identified and addressed in time.

Overall, the case confirms that effective intercultural communication is not achieved through equal treatment alone, but through adaptive communication that takes cultural differences seriously. The main learning outcome is that small, everyday interactions have long-term effects on trust, teamwork, and guest satisfaction. By increasing cultural awareness and implementing reflective practices, the organisation can strengthen collaboration, prevent gradual withdrawal, and create a more inclusive and effective multicultural working environment.

Possible solutions

To address intercultural communication challenges, the organisation could implement structured intercultural communication training for all staff, focusing on differences in directness, tone, and feedback styles as explained by Hofstede’s value dimensions. This would help employees recognize how power distance, individualism–collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance influence daily interactions. By increasing theoretical awareness, staff would be better equipped to interpret behavior accurately and adjust their own communication accordingly.

Additionally, the organisation could organize team-building workshops in which employees learn more about each other’s cultural backgrounds and communication styles. During these workshops, staff could discuss real workplace situations and reflect on how different cultures interpret respect, urgency, and criticism. Such reflective dialogue would strengthen mutual understanding, reduce misinterpretations, and increase awareness of cultural differences within the team, which is essential for maintaining harmony in a multicultural team.

Furthermore, within the organisation a “cultural buddy” system could be introduced in which new or existing employees are paired with a colleague from a different cultural background. Through this informal shadowing and regular interactions, staff would learn directly from each other. This learning approach would help reduce uncertainty, supporting faster adaptation for newcomers and promoting long-term development of the team. 

Together, these solutions combine theoretical knowledge, reflective practice, and experiential learning, making them both culturally sensitive and practically effective in improving teamwork and guest satisfaction.

Authors

Student: Saffiya Moodliar,  www.linkedin.com/in/saffiya-moodliar

Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

Student: Sion Faneyte, www.linkedin.com/in/sion-faneyte.

Block2, Semester 1, 2026

Student: Isaline Gurné, www.linkedin.com/in/isaline-gurne

Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

Student: Ignacy Struzik, www.linkedin.com/in/ignacy-struzik

Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

Student: Minrada Kumarasinghe, https://www.linkedin.com/in/natharie-kumarasinghe

Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

Chakira Mosadik: www.linkedin.com/in/chakira-mosadik

Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

An interview was conducted with a detainee caretaker at a facility that deals with Immigration Centreto gain insight into intercultural communication in immigration detention. The interview focused on daily interactions with detainees from diverse cultural backgrounds, highlighting challenges such as language barriers, differing perceptions of authority, and gender-role expectations. The findings provide practical context for the theoretical analysis in this report.

Overview

This report analyzes intercultural communication in Immigration Centrein the Netherlands, based on an interview with a detainee caretaker.  

Using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as an analytical framework, it examines how differences in power distance, uncertainty avoidance, gender norms, and decision-making expectations shape interactions between detainees and staff. The report connects empirical findings to theory, evaluates institutional practices, and proposes recommendations to improve communication, trust-building, and conflict management in detention contexts.

Hofstede Dimensions

1. Power Distance Index

Hofstede’s power distance index is the amount of strength given to a society’s hierarchy and is very applicable to the content (Hofstede et al., 2010). The Netherlands scores somewhat low on power distance, meaning authority figures are generally expected to be approachable, and equality is emphasized. However, Iran scores higher on power distance index which shows a greater acceptance of an hierarchical structure and unequal power relations (Culture in the workplace, 2026).

This difference is visible in the interview where detainees display either extreme submissiveness or strong distrust toward authority figures. Tensions are evident when detainees struggle to accept instructions from female staff members, which shows culturally influenced expectations regarding authority and gender roles. These differences could possibly affect decision-making and communication, requiring staff to invest additional time in explaining procedures clearly and building trust while maintaining institutional authority (Interview, 2026).

2. Individualism vs. Collectivism

Individualism vs collectivism explains more of the intercultural differences (Hofstede et al., 2010). The Netherlands is a highly individualistic society, where someone’s personal autonomy and individual responsibility have more impact. Iran, on the other hand, is more collectivist and traditionally values family and community involvement in decision-making (Culture in the workplace, 2026).

However, the interview reveals that family involvement among detainees is rare. Many detainees make decisions independently due to shame, fear, or separation from family. This demonstrates that cultural values are not fixed and can be reshaped by situational factors such as migration, trauma, and legal vulnerability. As a result, professionals must avoid cultural assumptions and adapt their communication to the individual rather than relying solely on cultural background (Interview, 2026).

3. Uncertainty Avoidance Index

Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance index helps in explaining the emotional reactions seen with detainees (Hofstede et al., 2010). Both the Netherlands and Iran show moderate to high uncertainty avoidance, but detainees (especially those with traumatic backgrounds) experience uncertainty far more intensely due to the lack of control over their legal situation (Culture in the workplace, 2026).

Uncertainty about detention length and case outcomes could lead to stress, anxiety, withdrawal, or aggressive behaviour. High uncertainty avoidance reduces detainees’ ability to process information rationally, which complicates communication and decision-making. The example of the Syrian detainee shows how calm communication, emotional reassurance, and the use of a detainee’s native language can reduce uncertainty and psychological noise, leading to de-escalation and more effective outcomes (Interview, 2026)

4. Masculinity vs. Femininity

Iran’s 43 is moderate, balancing achievement with relationships, but traditional gender roles persist, emphasizing modesty and care alongside some competitiveness. The Netherlands scores a very low 14 on masculinity, reflecting a highly feminine society that values cooperation, consensus, work-life balance, gender equality, and open emotional expression over aggression or status.

Gender-related tensions are common, per the interview, some detainees resist female authority or suppress emotions to appear “strong” (men more so), while women express sadness openly. These vary individually but stem from cultural norms clashing with Dutch equality. The feminine Dutch approach aids resolution through calm, respectful communication, as in the successful handling of a distressed Syrian detainee via empathetic listening and translation, ultimately locating his girlfriend and de-escalating a crisis.

5. Long-Term Orientation vs. Short-Term Orientation

Iran scores 14, indicating a strongly short-term normative orientation that emphasizes traditions, quick results, immediate social obligations, and respect for the past as well as present stability. The Netherlands scores 67 on long-term orientation, reflecting a pragmatic approach that emphasizes perseverance, future planning, thrift, and adaptability for sustained success.

Dutch legal processes, with their patient, procedural focus (e.g., appeals and integration planning), can frustrate short-term oriented detainees seeking rapid resolution, exacerbating uncertainty and anxiety. The interviewee’s emphasis on extra time for clear explanations aligns with bridging this gap, ensuring decisions aren’t rushed despite cultural impatience.

Figure 1: Hofstede’s Dimensions https://cultureinworkplace.com/country-comparison-dashboard/

Outcome

The interview with the detainee caretaker revealed that the Immigration Police operates within a complex intercultural environment in which Dutch cultural values strongly shape institutional practices, while continuous adaptation to detainees’ diverse cultural backgrounds is required. Core Dutch characteristics such as low power distance, direct communication, transparency, and rule-based decision-making are clearly reflected in daily interactions. At the same time, staff must adjust their approach when working with detainees from cultures that are more hierarchical, collectivist, or restrained. This combination results in a practice that blends formal institutional authority with situational cultural sensitivity, supporting both legal effectiveness and humane treatment (Interview, January 4, 2026).

By acknowledging cultural differences in perceptions of authority, gender roles, and uncertainty, the Organisation demonstrate how public institutions can navigate intercultural challenges effectively. Detainees from high power-distance cultures may either strongly distrust authority or display extreme submissiveness, which contrasts with the Dutch expectation of open communication and equality. Staff respond to these differences by remaining calm, providing repeated and clear explanations, and allowing extra time for trust-building. This approach aligns with Hofstede’s dimensions and helps reduce misunderstandings during interviews and hearings (Hofstede et al., 2010)

Moreover, the organization’s emphasis on clear and respectful communication reflects the Dutch low-context communication style, where transparency and explicit explanations are considered essential. However, language barriers frequently complicate this process. The consistent use of professional interpreters is therefore a key best practice, ensuring that detainees fully understand procedures and can accurately express their situation. This was particularly evident in the case of a Syrian detainee in severe emotional distress, where calm communication and accurate translation helped de-escalate a life-threatening situation and allowed the organization to respond appropriately (Interview, January 4, 2025). Such examples highlight how intercultural competence directly contributes to safety, trust, and ethical decision-making.

In addition, the interview revealed tensions related to gender roles and authority, especially when detainees from traditional or high-masculinity cultures interact with female staff members. While Dutch institutional norms emphasize equality and professionalism, these interactions sometimes create friction. Staff training in intercultural communication equips employees to manage such situations respectfully while maintaining Dutch legal standards (Interview, January 4, 2026). This reflects an institutional culture that values inclusivity and professionalism without compromising authority or legal obligations.

Furthermore, the Organisation operates within a structured, top-down legal framework, where decisions are ultimately guided by Dutch law and formal procedures. While this limits flexibility for both staff and detainees, it provides clarity and consistency in a high-stakes environment. At the same time, staff is encouraged to act proactively within their role by communicating transparently, showing empathy, and identifying risks such as trauma or self-harm. This balance between institutional hierarchy and interpersonal sensitivity is crucial in managing stress, uncertainty, and emotional responses among detainees (Interview, January 4, 2026).

In conclusion, the Organisation serves as a strong example of how an organization can integrate cultural awareness into a formal, authority-driven context. By combining Dutch cultural values of low power distance and direct communication with intercultural training, interpreter use, and emotional sensitivity, the organization enhances trust, fairness, and operational effectiveness. This approach not only improves outcomes for detainees but also strengthens the legitimacy, sustainability, and ethical standing of the institution within society.

Possible solutions

Based on interview findings and theory several solutions are proposed to enhance communication and decision-making within organisational settings.

1. Strengthening Training Through Scenario-Based Learning

While staff currently receive general intercultural training, their training should evolve to scenario-based learning to address behavioral challenges identified in the field. Training should be more in depth and transition away from abstract concepts to focus on realistic simulations like managing interactions with detainees who exhibit deep distrust of authority, extreme submissiveness, or resistance to female staff. This training allows personnel to practice de-escalation and trust-building strategies.

2. Institutionalizing Professional Interpretation

To reduce delays and emotional escalation, the Organisation should always use professional interpreter into the detention process. Language barriers are a primary driver of confusion and frustration during intake and legal briefings. As demonstrated by the case of the Syrian detainee, accurate translation is not only a logistical tool but a critical de-escalation mechanism that enhances safety and the perceived fairness of the decision-making process (Interview, 2026).

3. Gender-Sensitive Authority Protocols

To address tensions arising from differing cultural norms about gender and power, the immigrant police should implement role-based authority protocols. In cultures characterized with a high-power distance that support traditional gender hierarchies, detainees may struggle to abide the instructions from a female police officer. Clear guidelines should emphasize to the detainees that authority is derived from the professional role rather than the individual. In sensitive cases where the detainee refuses to follow instructions from a female officer, the immigration police should use a joint-staff presence. This means that there is both a male and female officers present to handle the situation with the detainee. Using this approach, the immigration police keep the Dutch equality standards without unnecessarily escalating conflicts with the detainees.

4. Structured Expectation Management

Many detainees experience anxiety due to unfamiliar legal procedures, unclear timelines, and the setting they are in. This is particularly the case among individuals from cultures with a short-term orientation or high uncertainty avoidance. To ease the tension of the detainees, staff should provide repeated, simplified explanations of procedural steps and timelines. Staff should provide visual aids where possible to clearly communicate the message. Allowing extra time for explanations helps prevent misunderstandings that could otherwise evolve into outbursts.

5. Proactive Management of Psychological Distress

Early identification of emotional and psychological distress must be a core priority for the officers. Detainees who experienced war or trauma may have heavy reactions, such as aggression or mental breakdowns, which could lead to escalated situations. Training staff to recognize warning signs and respond with calming but clear communication or immediate referral to support services, like physiatrist and/or therapists allows the organization to balance their legal responsibilities with ethical and humane treatment.

Authors

Achaira Suares (www.linkedin.com/in/achairasuares)
Student: International Business University of Amsterdam Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

Oriana Rivero (linkedin.com/in/oriana-rivero-196086298)
Student: International Business University of Amsterdam Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

Kristína Chalupková (www.linkedin.com/in/kristína-chalupková-443930332)
Student: International Business University of Amsterdam Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

Wonderful Owusu-Ansah (www.linkedin.com/in/wonderful-owusu-ansah-2b0bb0303)
Student: International Business University of Amsterdam Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

Amisha Chhibber  (www.linkedin.com/in/amisha-c-70b98b250 )
Student: International Business University of Amsterdam Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

Jamil El Bahraoui (linkedin.com/in/jamil-mohammed-el-bahraoui-5a225838a)
Student: International Business University of Amsterdam Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2026