Table 1

Source: Own research.

According to our interlocutors, Polish directness in communication manifests itself in clarity and honesty in both speech and behaviour. This is best captured in the statement of a Belarusian manager working for a world energy supplier: “Polish people are extremely open. They don’t hide anything and feel free to share any opinion. And they don’t seek to understand what is on the other side of the argument and then decide whether they should speak or not. They are kind of straightforward and authentic”. For the respondent, Polish professionals thus come across as genuine and non-manipulative. Rather than trying to gauge the position of the speaker before revealing their true intentions, they remain authentic and open throughout the conversation. This view is shared by a German senior leader employed in a global consumer goods corporation: “For me, Poles are very effective, but I like straight talk. When I speak with Polish colleagues, there are rarely anymisunderstandings between us because I know I can come to the point fast, and they know it too. So, for me and my team, this style of communicating really makes things easy”. According to this German speaker, Polish directness in professional settings promotes understanding and clarity, which leads to effectiveness.

The evaluation of Polish professionals as direct and honest speakers reaffirms an important cultural norm described by Wierzbicka (1999) as a “script of sincerity”. The script emphasises the value of presenting one’s feelings truthfully, that is, of saying and showing, what one really feels, and not saying, or showing, that one feels something that one does not feel “(Ibid.: 241)”. Wierzbicka (Ibid.: 247) attributes this norm to Polish culture in general and contrasts it with the American “script of enthusiasm”, which celebrates and demands ongoing positivity. Although the majority of foreign professionals interviewed in our study identified the Polish style of communicating with verbal directness, there are also examples in our data that point to the use of ambiguous and high-context language. In such instances, the emphasis on pragmatic efficiency and honesty has given way to relational concerns for which politeness and indirectness are the primary linguistic mechanisms (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). In the words of a French financial analyst: “Poles are direct but equally very polite. It’s what makes them sound professional, though sometimes their style really borders on indirectness. For example, my colleagues are always asking me if I have time for them. They ask me if they can ask me. So, I then ask them if they have time to ask me (laughter)”. According to a cross-cultural specialist, Lewis (2012), the Polish pursuit of politeness often precludes too much directness in interaction, and although Poles are themselves used to a certain degree of ambiguity and circumlocution, their understated style can be a source of confusion in encounters with people who are used to “reading the air”, an observation shared by an American lecturer and business consultant:

“I have frequently experienced mixed signals in Poland where you thought one thing, but it was really another thing. I find that Polish people don’t want to say no to you. They find another way to agree with you where the no really means yes. It is not only in Poland, but here I felt it was because people simply don’t want to disappoint you. Yet to me, it comes across asa lack of follow-through. Like they don’t comply with their commitments”.

Here, the reluctance of Polish people to say no directly poses a major barrier to trust building and effective communication because, in the eyes of North Americans and North-West Europeans, such behaviour comes across as unreliable. Gesteland (2012) reports on similar experiences faced by Danes and other nationals, who noticed the difficulty that Polish professionals have with saying no, particularly to their foreign partners. He points to the Polish optimistic nature and can-do attitude as a plausible explanation. We would argue that the reason why Poles often opt for indirectness in communication, apart from the polite urge to please and satisfy, is the need to be recognised as a credible business partner.

Table 2

Source: Own research

The quantitative analysis confirms the classification of Poland as a culture which is “variably expressive”. This term, coined by Gesteland (2012: 264), captures the unpredictability of reactions and a wide spectrum of attitudes ranging from withdrawn, reflective and patient to loud, flamboyant and dramatic, which, as Gesteland asserts, can all be displayed by Poles at any moment during the interaction. Evidence from our interviews shows that both contextual features and culturally varied expectations influence the assessment of Polish emotional expressivity. In the eyes of an American business consultant, Polish people come across as “standoffish” through their body language and facial expression: “When surrounded by strangers, Poles seem particularly mindful and are carefully watching their boundaries. You may call it stoic or neutral – no eye contact, very little loud noise, almost like blending into the wallpaper”. Likewise, for a British HR executive who has mentored Polish managers from across the country since Poland joined the EU, Polish restraint in communication is an example of a dry social convention:

“From the Western perspective, Poles are polite but not very emotional. It is a learned art, and I would not read anything into it. Germans are reserved too. They have a blank look on their face and are totally unemotive. But the Brits, they can be reserved and at the same time dig your grave. You don’t really read anything from them. Technically they can stonewall you. And they would be positive throughout the entire space”.

According to the British director, the polite but emotionally monotonous style of Polish nonverbal communication hinders effective interaction because the language of the body does not correlate with the verbal message: “Poles are slowly learning that communication is not only about words. One can express attitudes by a mere inflection of one’s voice. And that all of it significantly improves matters in the business world”.

In the opinion of British and American speakers, Poles are not good at “small talk” or “ice-breaking situations”. They succeed with “clinical” English but struggle with “emotionally-infused communication”, which a senior business consultant from New York blames squarely on a conservative Polish upbringing. He contends that the traditional style of child-rearing practices denies Poles opportunities to learn how to vocalise emotions in stressful situations without falling into extreme states. In his words: “I often find that Polish people have like an on-and-off switch when it comes to emotions. Either it’s off, and everything is neutral and rationally-minded or completely out of control, where it gets to be a major blow-up”. Such behaviour is especially visible in the workplace at times of crises. It might be a missed deadline or a lost deal. The manager observes that Polish speakers have an “immediate go-to reaction”, which is “brush it off. There is no problem. Don’t worry about it.”. This way of dealing with the situation might seem polite and cooperative – the expression of sympathy does express solidarity with the speaker (Chlopicki 2017) – however, in the eyes of the American respondent, Polish politeness acts as a defence mechanism for not being able to diffuse the situation and deal with it in a way that is both productive and comfortable for all parties.

The disparity in the verbalisation of emotions between North American and Polish cultures has a solid linguistic foundation. As noticed by Wierzbicka (1999: 263), members of Anglo-Saxon nations typically express emotions by means of active verbs, which assign agency to the speaker (e.g. “I am feeling ashamed.” “I felt sad.”). Polish speakers instead use more passive forms, which rids them of direct control over their emotions, as expressed by the phrases: “Jest mi wstyd.”, “Było mi smutno.” Wierzbicka (1999: 262) observes that in Polish sentences, “the involuntary character of feelings is reflected in the grammar”, which in English translates as “It makes me feel embarrassed.”, “It makes me feel sad”. The Anglo-Saxon agency and self-awareness thus sharply contrast with the Polish state of emotional subordination, where effective states seem to happen beyond individual control (Boski 2010). The suppression of feelings or struggles with uncontrollable impulses is two dominant reactions that foreign employees associate with the Polish workplace. Such polarised attitudes have a long historical pedigree, with an origin in romantic models of masculinity that have survived to the present day. As noticed by Santorski (1998), today’s Pole is either highly rational, in which case they completely reject feelings, or is emotional beyond self-control.

Table 3

Source: Own research

The following descriptions display the views that foreign professionals working in Poland hold on the Polish leadership style:

Of all the linguistic resources used to impart attitude, adjectives are the most common. Most of them express negative judgements referring to “capacity” (“unpredictable”, “chaotic”, “inflexible”), “normality” (“old-school”, “traditional”, “official”) and “propriety” (“aggressive, “hierarchical”, “directive”, “disempowering”, “not transparent”) (Martin and White 2005: 53). Such descriptions construe a picture of Polish leadership as coercive and autocratic, reflecting norms and values which the business psychologist Santorski (1998) links with the early stages of ethical business development. Drawing on Starcher’s (1997) theory of ethics, Santorski traces the transition in Polish consciousness across three initial stages out of the six posited by the scholar. In stage one, decisions and actions happen according to the “law of the jungle” or the “might makes right” principle. In stage two, labelled “anything goes”, business decisions continue to be focused on self-centred gain, with little sensitivity expressed towards the other parties. Finally, stage three refers to a “short-term maximising of profits” and higher conformity to the rule of law. It is interesting to see how the language used by foreign professionals describing their experience with Polish management (“take it and live with it whatever the consequences”, “no matter what”, and “anything can happen”) reflects the early stages of ethical awareness, which as Starcher (1997) and Santorski (1998) point out, characterise emerging, command economies.

Table 4

Source: Own research

The stories collected from the interviews shed more light on the behavior of Poles displayed during discussions and arguments. A Ukrainian project manager for a major tech firm moved to Poland to undertake doctoral research. When asked to share her experience from the academic and corporate sectors, she offered the following observations:

“Polish people are very open when it comes to expressing ideas. If they have something to say, they are likely to share it openly, and nothing will stop them. Whether it is a one-to-one conversation, a team meeting or a chat with colleagues in a pub – it is irrelevant. I recall a co-worker telling others in the kitchen the other day about his health issues and why he gave up on the sport. All of a sudden, there was a fiery discussion, with people divided into teams shouting vigorously”.

According to a Japanese electronics engineer, Poles do not shy away from stating their opinions, and if there is a small trace of doubt on their part, they are likely to share it with others, including their boss. Such behaviour is a clear path to breaking a relationship in Asian societies where people are accustomed to avoiding conflicts. As he explains:

“Although one can see that the higher management in Poland is consciously adapting their strong disagreeing habits to match the Japanese norm: that is, expressing their opinions in a subtle or roundabout manner, it is not really their style. Most of my Japanese colleagues would agree that Poles are known for uninhibited emotional expression”.

While in Japanese society, the rules of conversation dictate that one should take account of the feelings of another person, the Polish “script of spontaneity” (Wierzbicka 1999) allows one to voice their opinions and vent negative emotions freely. As Wierzbicka (1999: 262) aptly points out, “In this cultural universe (..) there is a need to express feelings and to express them now, without thinking about them and without trying to analyse, shape or suppress them”. The observations of the Tokyo-born engineer reflect this behavioural pattern. He states that in the eyes of the Japanese, Poles are impatient, frequently interrupt and leave very little time for the interlocutor to reflect on what had just been said during the conversation: “I still struggle to get used to the style of meetings where the interlocutors are constantly interrupting each other or where silence is hardly tolerated, while people talk on top of each other. I learned that in Poland, I often have to ask people to let me finish the sentence”.

A different view of Polish behaviour observed during team meetings and public discussions emerges from the account of a British director commuting between Poland, Switzerland and Great Britain. In his account, Polish professionals are often quiet when they are asked to express their opinion. As the executive in charge of global operations recounts, audibly raising his voice: “You spend hours talking about a subject and when you ask: Are you guys okay with that? – no one returns the answer. So, I try hard to get them into a state where this is a two-way conversation. An engaging conversation, but I do know they do not like to go against the current of things”. According to him, Polish professionals often abstain from voicing their views in public to preserve the impression that they are the experts, and the silence assists them with protecting their face in case they do not know the answer. For many of them, not having the right answer is a sign of failure. In the experience of a media analyst from Sweden, the adherence to workplace hierarchy in Poland shows itself in the style of behaviour accepted during conflict:

“Between colleagues’ Poles tend to be openly critical of the company’s flaws, but the second a manager walks in the room, the employees make sure their opinion aligns with that of their superior. It seemed like avoiding a conflict was a higher priority than making yourself heard. I also saw this behaviour between colleagues on the same level. They could loudly discuss a topic, but ultimately would be “in violent agreement” with each other and not often challenge the status quo”.

Table 5

Source: Own research

In the opinion of a German senior manager, the Polish cultural attitude to evaluation is “peculiar” and requires a special approach. Though in general, Poles like to share their feedback openly and if something is not good, they will most likely voice their concerns, when faced with criticism, they expect softness and sensitivity: “In the Polish culture there is allowance towards expressing negative opinions with no distinction being made whether you address men or women. You shouldn’t say things too directly, but you are expected to voice criticism”. The manager admitted that over the years of working in Poland, he has learned to express his feedback with caution by using a wrap technique, such as layering negative statements with positive ones or using examples instead of relying on opinions.

In the eyes of a Ukrainian project manager working in IT, Polish managers can be rather direct in their critical assessments. There is a belief that it is better to express opinions bluntly than to sacrifice the truth for the sake of diplomacy. But it is the strong mixture of influences stemming from the U.S and Western Europe which, according to the data analyst, defines the Polish attitude to feedback: “There is a real effort here in Poland to combine direct communication with politeness. Like saying “there are clear things to improve upon, but generally you are doing fine”. So, I think Poles have merged and adjusted those two styles, which works well in business”. Admitting the Polish propensity towards sharing honest opinions, the manager contends that Poles, just like their Ukrainian neighbours, are not used to giving and receiving feedback at work. She points to a strong influence of Soviet-style governance, which suppressed freedom of expression and restricted opportunities for professional development in Slavic countries. In her words: “We are still learning to work with feedback, but self-defensiveness sits deeply in our roots”.

According to a British marketing specialist in the IT industry, Polish professionals struggle with providing bold or challenging feedback. One of the difficulties he encountered while working with Poles and the Russians was that they would still give a strong impression that they understood what they were asked to deliver despite not having the faintest idea: “I think they are trying to preserve the image that they are the best at what they do and feel bad if they say they don’t understand it. Admitting openly that they don’t know what to do is a sign of failure”. A similar attitude was observed by a German marketing consultant, who noted an almost complete lack of questions during presentations he delivered in Poland, in direct contrast to the fierce conversations he had enjoyed with his Dutch, German and Scandinavian clients. He notes that the Polish “habit” of abstaining from contesting his ideas deprives Polish employees of opportunities to learn from his training. He also mentions misunderstandings which occur as a result of withdrawn information. As he recounts:

“In the last four years that I have worked in Poland, there were hardly a few people who stood up and said publicly “, Sorry, I did not get your point. Can you explain it again?”. As nobody is doing that, I have been forced to rely on clarifications every time I deliver for the Polish audience. I have to ask them if everything is clear. Because even if 80% of people are okay with the content, there will still be 20% of those who will keep silent and lead to a misunderstanding”.

According to an Indian engineer and lecturer, most miscommunications arise when Poles who are working in English don’t acknowledge whether they have understood the questions. Their reluctance to provide on-the-spot feedback creates a rich ground for misunderstandings because people often go about things in the wrong way instead of doing what they were expected to do.