Ukrainian professionals often communicate quite directly. Phrases such as “I don't know,” “that won't work,” or “that's a bad decision” are about honesty and efficiency for us. But in an international context, those same words can be interpreted differently.
I have seen many times how in British or Japanese companies, a direct answer without softening is perceived as harshness or unwillingness to cooperate. And an honest “I don't know” is perceived as a lack of preparation or initiative. The problem is not honesty itself, but the fact that harsh answers can be off-putting.
Another very common issue is how candidates talk about their experience. Many Ukrainian specialists speak in terms of “we”: we implemented, we decided, we launched. In our culture, this is a sign of teamwork. But in international recruitment, it often has the opposite effect.
The interviewer may try to understand what exactly the candidate was responsible for, what decisions they made personally, and what influence they had. When this is not clear, it creates the impression that either there was no responsibility or the candidate is not aware of their contribution, even if this is not the case.
The global labor market is becoming increasingly competitive, with companies hiring specialists outside their own countries. At the same time, I regularly see a picture like that: strong, experienced candidates receive rejections with phrases like “we decided to move forward with another candidate” without any explanation.
Confusing? At first glance, yes. But if you dig deeper, the reasons are usually quite clear.
My name is Yuliia, I work in international recruitment, and every week I see situations where candidates don't get hired not because of a lack of knowledge or experience. Often, the reason is intercultural communication difficulties during the interview stage. It is often discussed in the context of teamwork, but much less frequently in the context of the hiring process itself. However, recruitment is one of the areas where intercultural competence often plays a decisive role.
There is a common misconception that an interview is a dry process: questions and answers. But beyond that, it is also a live conversation with a person who may be from a completely different culture. The candidate comes to the interview with their own ideas about what “professional,” “polite,” “normal,” and “appropriate” mean. The interviewer has their own ideas. And if these ideas don't match, tension arises that is difficult to articulate in clear feedback. That is why, after a seemingly normal interview, the candidate receives a standard rejection and does not understand what went wrong.
The interview format also depends heavily on culture. In American or Israeli companies, it is often a lively dialogue: the candidate can interrupt, ask counter questions, joke, and actively sell themselves. In many European corporations, the conversation is more formal and structured. In Asian cultures, the hierarchy is even more pronounced.
A candidate accustomed to one format may unconsciously violate the expectations of another. What in one context looks like initiative and engagement may in another be perceived as a violation of roles or even disrespect.
The global labor market is becoming increasingly competitive, with companies hiring specialists outside their own countries. At the same time, I regularly see a picture like that: strong, experienced candidates receive rejections with phrases like “we decided to move forward with another candidate” without any explanation.
Confusing? At first glance, yes. But if you dig deeper, the reasons are usually quite clear.
My name is Yuliia, I work in international recruitment, and every week I see situations where candidates don't get hired not because of a lack of knowledge or experience. Often, the reason is intercultural communication difficulties during the interview stage. It is often discussed in the context of teamwork, but much less frequently in the context of the hiring process itself. However, recruitment is one of the areas where intercultural competence often plays a decisive role.
There is a common misconception that an interview is a dry process: questions and answers. But beyond that, it is also a live conversation with a person who may be from a completely different culture. The candidate comes to the interview with their own ideas about what “professional,” “polite,” “normal,” and “appropriate” mean. The interviewer has their own ideas. And if these ideas don't match, tension arises that is difficult to articulate in clear feedback. That is why, after a seemingly normal interview, the candidate receives a standard rejection and does not understand what went wrong.
Ukrainian professionals often communicate quite directly. Phrases such as “I don't know,” “that won't work,” or “that's a bad decision” are about honesty and efficiency for us. But in an international context, those same words can be interpreted differently.
I have seen many times how in British or Japanese companies, a direct answer without softening is perceived as harshness or unwillingness to cooperate. And an honest “I don't know” is perceived as a lack of preparation or initiative. The problem is not honesty itself, but the fact that harsh answers can be off-putting.
Another very common issue is how candidates talk about their experience. Many Ukrainian specialists speak in terms of “we”: we implemented, we decided, we launched. In our culture, this is a sign of teamwork. But in international recruitment, it often has the opposite effect.
The interviewer may try to understand what exactly the candidate was responsible for, what decisions they made personally, and what influence they had. When this is not clear, it creates the impression that either there was no responsibility or the candidate is not aware of their contribution, even if this is not the case.
The interview format also depends heavily on culture. In American or Israeli companies, it is often a lively dialogue: the candidate can interrupt, ask counter questions, joke, and actively sell themselves. In many European corporations, the conversation is more formal and structured. In Asian cultures, the hierarchy is even more pronounced.
A candidate accustomed to one format may unconsciously violate the expectations of another. What in one context looks like initiative and engagement may in another be perceived as a violation of roles or even disrespect.
In international hiring, rejections are almost never stated directly. Companies avoid detailed feedback for ethical or other reasons. As a result, the candidate is left alone with their guesses.
At the same time, very often rejection is not related to the level of professionalism at all. The vacancy may be closed due to an internal recommendation, a change in priorities, or a simple feeling that “communication didn't click.” But this reason is rarely stated.
Here's an important point: intercultural communication in hiring is not about changing yourself or “playing a role.” You shouldn't break your personality for the sake of a hypothetical fit. On the contrary, sometimes a mismatch is an honest and healthy outcome for both parties.
At the same time, it is useful to understand the cultural context of the company before the interview, to be able to adapt the form of presentation without changing the essence, to clearly articulate your personal contribution, and to remember that an interview is not an exam, but an interaction different perspectives.
The better the candidate understands these differences, the more likely it is that their experience and strengths will be interpreted correctly.
The global labor market is becoming increasingly competitive, with companies hiring specialists outside their own countries. At the same time, I regularly see a picture like that: strong, experienced candidates receive rejections with phrases like “we decided to move forward with another candidate” without any explanation.
Confusing? At first glance, yes. But if you dig deeper, the reasons are usually quite clear.
My name is Yuliia, I work in international recruitment, and every week I see situations where candidates don't get hired not because of a lack of knowledge or experience. Often, the reason is intercultural communication difficulties during the interview stage. It is often discussed in the context of teamwork, but much less frequently in the context of the hiring process itself. However, recruitment is one of the areas where intercultural competence often plays a decisive role.
There is a common misconception that an interview is a dry process: questions and answers. But beyond that, it is also a live conversation with a person who may be from a completely different culture. The candidate comes to the interview with their own ideas about what “professional,” “polite,” “normal,” and “appropriate” mean. The interviewer has their own ideas. And if these ideas don't match, tension arises that is difficult to articulate in clear feedback. That is why, after a seemingly normal interview, the candidate receives a standard rejection and does not understand what went wrong.
.png)
