An accurate representation of both cultures can sound like this:

Danish workplace culture:

  • Flat hierarchies with minimal power distance
  • Direct, straightforward communication
  • Emphasis on individual autonomy and empowerment
  • Managers often function as facilitators rather than directors
  • "Janteloven" cultural element that discourages showing superiority
  • Open-ended questions are normal ways to invite collaboration.

Romanian workplace culture:

  • More hierarchical structures, especially in traditional organizations
  • Historical influences from communist era where questioning authority could be problematic
  • Education system that often rewards correct answers over creative thinking
  • Preference for clarity and specificity in professional contexts
  • Stronger deference to authority figures
  • Detailed communication that demonstrates thoroughness.

We can't discuss communication without touching on how Romania's historical experiences with authoritarian regimes created communication patterns where asking someone's opinion could sometimes be a way to test loyalty rather than genuinely seek input.

We need a deeper cultural context for a proper understanding, ensuring neither culture is portrayed as superior or inferior - just different with their own strengths and challenges.


โ‘  Different cultural expectations around communication and authority.

In many Eastern European professional contexts including Romania, there's often a stronger hierarchical structure where managers are expected to provide clear direction; open-ended questions from authority figures can sometimes be interpreted differently than in Nordic cultures.


โ‘ก Different cultural frameworks for workplace communication

Danish workplaces often have flatter hierarchies where open-ended questions are common practice for gathering input, while Romanian professional contexts may have more defined communication patterns.


4 Ways to Bridge Danish-Romanian Communication Patterns:

1. Frame Questions with Clear Parameters

Instead of: "What do you think about this approach?" Try: "Based on your technical expertise, what implementation challenges do you see with this X architecture?"

This maintains Danish collaborative intent while providing the specific parameters Romanian professionals often prefer.

2. Provide Context Before Seeking Input

Explain the purpose behind your question and how the input will be used. This addresses the Romanian cultural preference for understanding the broader context of communication.

"We're deciding between approaches A and B. Your experience with similar systems would help us understand potential maintenance issues. What specific concerns should we consider?"

3. Combine Both Communication Styles

Balance open and structured elements in your questions: "Here are three specific aspects I'd value your perspective on, and I'm also interested if you see other factors we haven't considered."

This creates bridges between both cultural preferences rather than requiring either side to completely adapt.

4. Establish Shared Communication Expectations

Invest time in creating explicit team understanding about different question types and their purposes. This isn't accommodating "difficulty" but establishing efficient communication that leverages both cultures' strengths.

When teams understand these differences aren't about personality but about equally valid cultural frameworks, collaboration improves dramatically.

#CrossCulturalLeadership #DanishRomanianTeams #InternationalManagement