My first week working at Casino Nova Scotia in Halifax, I asked my supervisor a direct question: "Did I make a mistake with that transaction?"

She smiled and said, "Well, you know, it's interesting how you approached that..."

I waited for her to answer my question. She kept talking about process improvements and training opportunities. Five minutes later, I still didn't know if I'd made a mistake.

Later, a colleague pulled me aside. "She was telling you that you made a mistake. That's how we give feedback here."

I was genuinely confused. Why not just say "yes, you made a mistake, here's how to fix it?" Why wrap it in five minutes of context and suggestions?

That moment crystallized something I'd been noticing but couldn't articulate: professional communication in Canada operated by different rules than professional communication in Bangladesh. Not worse or better rules. Different rules optimizing for different values.

Eight years in Canada taught me those patterns. Now I'm in the UK learning a third set. The adaptation isn't just about language. English is my working language in all three countries. The adaptation is about what's said versus what's meant, what's acceptable versus what's rude, when directness signals respect versus disrespect.

I'm still figuring this out. But the pattern recognition is getting faster.

Directness as a Variable, Not a Constant

In Bangladesh, particularly in family business contexts, communication tends toward directness about work matters. If something is wrong, you say it's wrong. If someone made an error, you point it out. The directness signals that you're treating the other person as capable of handling straightforward feedback.

Indirectness would often signal that you don't think they can handle direct communication. It can read as condescending or indicate you don't trust the relationship to handle honest assessment.

Canadian professional communication, at least in the environments I worked, operated differently. Directness, especially about errors or problems, could signal aggression or disrespect. The politeness markers, the contextual framing, the suggestions rather than corrections—these weren't wasting time. They were demonstrating respect by softening the message.

When my supervisor spent five minutes not-quite-telling-me I'd made an error, she wasn't being unclear. She was following Canadian professional norms for respectful feedback. I just didn't recognize the pattern yet.

The UK sits somewhere between these poles, at least in my experience so far. More direct than Canadian communication, less direct than Bangladeshi communication. But the rules for when directness is appropriate versus when it's rude seem to depend on hierarchy, context, and relationship in ways I'm still learning to recognize.

The adaptation isn't learning which style is "correct." It's learning to recognize which context you're in and adjust accordingly.

Hierarchy Shapes Every Interaction

At my family's business in Bangladesh, hierarchy was explicit and structured. You addressed senior colleagues with specific terms of respect. You waited for them to speak first in meetings. You presented recommendations for their decision, not as independent conclusions.

This wasn't about being servile. It was about showing respect for experience and position. Everyone understood the structure. The clarity made interactions predictable.

In Canada, particularly in corporate environments like Citco and Manulife, the stated norm was that "everyone's voice matters equally" and "we have flat hierarchies here." The reality was more complex.

Hierarchy still existed, but it operated implicitly. You could address senior colleagues by first name, but you still needed to read the room about when your opinion was wanted versus when you should wait. You could suggest ideas, but recognizing whose support you needed to gain first required understanding unspoken political dynamics.

The stated egalitarianism made hierarchy harder to navigate, not easier. At least in explicit hierarchies, the rules are clear. In implicit hierarchies, you have to infer the rules while pretending they don't exist.

The UK seems to acknowledge hierarchy more explicitly than Canada but less rigidly than Bangladesh. You can challenge ideas more directly than in traditional Bangladeshi contexts, but there's still clear recognition of seniority and experience that differs from Canadian corporate egalitarianism.

I've made mistakes in all three contexts. In Bangladesh, being too informal with senior colleagues because I'd adapted to Canadian norms. In Canada, being too deferential in ways that read as lacking confidence. In the UK, still calibrating where the boundaries actually are.

Meetings as Cultural Performance

Meetings in Bangladesh, at least in the contexts I've worked, tend to follow clear patterns. Senior person frames the situation, others provide input when asked, senior person makes decision. The meeting's purpose is often to communicate decisions and ensure alignment, not to debate options.

Participating effectively means preparing relevant information, presenting it clearly when asked, and supporting the decision once made. Pushing back too strongly or too often signals you don't respect the hierarchy.

Canadian meetings, especially in environments like Citco and Manulife, operated differently. The stated norm was collaborative decision-making where everyone contributes ideas and challenges assumptions. The unstated reality was that some voices carried more weight, but you were supposed to pretend all contributions had equal standing.

I learned to read the real dynamics beneath the egalitarian performance. Who speaks first shapes the conversation. How senior people respond to ideas signals what's actually acceptable. When the conversation shifts from exploration to decision-making isn't always explicitly announced.

UK meetings, from what I'm observing, seem more comfortable with explicit disagreement than Canadian meetings but less formal than Bangladeshi meetings. You can challenge ideas directly, but there's nuance about tone and context that I'm still learning.

The adaptation challenge: in all three contexts, meetings serve purposes beyond the stated agenda. Information exchange, yes, but also relationship building, hierarchy reinforcement, coalition forming. Understanding what's actually happening requires reading beneath the surface level.

Email as a Translation Exercise

I've learned to write the same basic message three different ways depending on cultural context.

Bangladeshi professional email (to someone senior): "I have reviewed the analysis and found three areas requiring attention. I recommend we schedule a meeting to discuss appropriate corrections. Please let me know your availability."

Canadian professional email: "Thanks so much for sharing the analysis! I've had a chance to review it, and I noticed a few areas that might benefit from another look. Would it be helpful to schedule a quick chat to discuss? I'm flexible on timing, so just let me know what works best for you!"

UK professional email (still calibrating): "I've reviewed the analysis and identified three areas that need addressing. Happy to discuss. Let me know when suits."

Same core message. Different politeness markers, different level of directness, different tone. All three versions are "correct" in their respective contexts. All three would feel slightly wrong in the other contexts.

The Canadian version would read as overly enthusiastic or insecure in UK contexts. The Bangladeshi version would read as too formal or hierarchical in Canadian contexts. The UK version might read as too casual in traditional Bangladeshi business contexts.

This isn't about finding the "right" email style. It's about recognizing that communication effectiveness depends on matching contextual expectations.

Feedback Culture Shapes Growth Differently

In Bangladesh, at least in the environments I've worked, feedback tends to be task-focused and relatively direct. If your analysis had errors, someone points out the errors. If your process could improve, someone tells you how. The feedback is about the work, not you personally.

The directness means you know where you stand. You're not left guessing whether "interesting approach" means your work was good or whether it's code for "this is completely wrong."

Canadian feedback culture, particularly in corporate environments, operates through softer mechanisms. Feedback gets wrapped in positive framing, suggestions rather than corrections, future-focused improvement language rather than present-focused error identification.

The gentleness serves important purposes. It maintains relationship comfort, reduces defensiveness, creates space for face-saving. But it also makes it harder to know where you actually stand.

I had to learn to translate. When my manager at Manulife said "this is really good, and one thing that might strengthen it further would be...", she wasn't adding optional enhancements. She was telling me what I needed to fix.

UK feedback, from what I'm experiencing, seems more direct than Canadian but still less direct than Bangladeshi. People will tell you something needs improvement, but the framing and tone still carry important signals about severity that I'm learning to read.

The challenge: effective professional development requires understanding where you actually need to improve, not just hearing polite suggestions. That requires translating feedback norms to extract the real message.

Small Talk Serves Different Functions

In Bangladeshi professional contexts, relationship building happens through sharing personal information: family situations, backgrounds, connections. These conversations establish trust and context for working relationships.

Canadian professional contexts have strong norms against being "too personal" at work. Small talk happens, but it stays surface-level. Weather, weekend plans, sports, TV shows. You build rapport without revealing much actual personal information.

This felt strange initially. How do you build real professional relationships if you can't share meaningful personal context? But I learned that Canadian professional culture maintains stronger boundaries between personal and professional spheres.

UK small talk, from what I'm observing, seems comfortable with slightly more personal information than Canadian contexts but still maintains clearer boundaries than Bangladeshi contexts. Acceptable small talk topics seem wider, but there are still unspoken limits about what's too personal.

The adaptation: I've learned to calibrate how much personal information to share based on context, not just based on what feels natural to me.

What This Actually Means Practically

After working across Bangladesh, Canada, and the UK, I don't feel "fully comfortable" in any single cultural context anymore. I recognize patterns. I can adapt. But there's always a slight translation layer.

When someone gives me feedback in the UK, I'm listening to the words while also analyzing: is this Canadian-style soft feedback that actually means something needs significant improvement? Is this UK-style direct feedback that means exactly what it says? How urgent is this really?

When I write emails, I'm consciously choosing tone and structure based on who I'm writing to and where they're likely from. When I'm in meetings, I'm monitoring both the explicit agenda and the implicit dynamics.

This constant translation costs energy. It also provides advantage.

I notice things that people operating within single cultural contexts often miss. When someone from the UK thinks they're being direct, I recognize they're still softer than Bangladeshi directness would be. When Canadian colleagues think they're being egalitarian, I see the implicit hierarchy they're not acknowledging.

For employers: someone who's navigated multiple professional cultures brings specific capabilities. We can work effectively across different communication styles. We can translate between colleagues from different cultural backgrounds. We recognize when misunderstandings are about cultural norms rather than actual disagreement.

This isn't exotic or special. It's practical adaptation that comes from navigating multiple contexts.

What I'm Still Learning

UK professional culture is newer to me than Bangladeshi or Canadian contexts. I'm still calibrating appropriate levels of directness, still learning the boundaries between personal and professional, still figuring out when challenge is valued versus when it's seen as problematic.

I make mistakes. Sometimes I'm too direct because I've overcorrected from Canadian softness. Sometimes I'm too formal because I'm defaulting to Bangladeshi patterns. Sometimes I miss UK-specific signals entirely.

The learning process continues. The adaptation doesn't have an endpoint where you've "mastered" cross-cultural communication. It's ongoing pattern recognition and adjustment.