I was recently speaking with a Singapore-based executive whose team spans six nationalities and four generations. “The complexity of leading global teams is getting harder,” she said. “It’s no longer just time zones and accents; it’s clashing values, different ideas of respect, and completely different ways of working.”

She went on to describe how two Gen Z team members recently blocked a colleague who upset them, citing mental health concerns. While she respected their desire for boundaries, she told them, “You can’t just block someone at work. You have to engage, even when it’s hard.”

This kind of conflict on global teams isn’t just about culture in the traditional sense. It reflects overlapping layers of identity including generational expectations, digital work habits, political worldviews, and unequal power dynamics. My current research is focused on understanding the challenges facing global leaders across Asia, the Gulf, and the West. The initial findings suggest that it’s these deeper, often invisible dynamics that divide teams most.

The tensions on global teams are not always obvious. But here are three recurring dynamics that consistently undermine trust and performance on global teams along with guidance for how culturally intelligent leaders can address them.

1. Gen Z Plays By Different Rules 

Generational conflict isn’t new. We’ve all felt it at different points along our own careers. But there’s a different dynamic emerging in how workplaces are navigating the presence of Gen Z. Ironically, Millennials seem to be the most frustrated by their younger teammates, although this is not all that surprising; adjacent generations are usually the ones most critical of each other. Among many global teams I’m studying, there’s a growing influence of generational values on professional work norms. Executives repeatedly describe friction with younger employees who challenge assumptions about hierarchy, feedback, and timelines, things that used to be typical in Western contexts but not as much in other parts of the world. For example, a growing number of middle class families in places like India have raised their Gen Z kids to think critically, respectfully challenge authority, and exert their voices. But as these kids enter many workplaces in India or the Gulf, they encounter team members and managers who expect them to toe the line as a “good Indian should.”

Add that generational friction is occurring across many global teams where age-related preferences clash alongside cultural differences surrounding respect, speed, and decision-making. What often gets labeled as a performance issue is really a collision of values that leaders don’t always know how to interpret. The same team leaders who demonstrate a generous dose of inclusive empathy toward someone based on their racial and national background may have little tolerance for a value that feels like it’s coming from a disengaged twenty-something who is labeled as lacking a strong work ethic and decent social skills.

Culturally intelligent leaders don’t dismiss these tensions as entitlement or fragility. But neither do they accommodate every team member’s preference. They treat generational friction the same way they approach any cultural clash by surfacing assumptions and co-creating team norms. This might mean agreeing to a team culture that is psychologically safe and intellectually honest followed by a robust discussion about the difference in the behaviors that make each team member feel that way. Or it could mean building a shared team culture where saying “I need a moment” is respected, but blocking a colleague is not.

Culturally intelligent teams translate team values into shared norms by asking questions like, “What does ‘communicating clearly’ look like when someone misses a deadline?” The goal is to reach agreement about a diversity of acceptable ways of working across different values and styles whether those differences stem from culture, generation, or individual preference. Leaders who guide their teams in shaping explicit norms are far more likely to build a high-performing team culture that works across generations and geographies.

2. Virtually Connected But Globally Fragmented 

Meeting on Zoom, messaging each other on Slack, and working on a shared document are daily realities for most global teams. But these are also leading sources of frustration. By default, working with colleagues around the world means someone is regularly joining calls late at night or early in the morning. It’s not just about the inconvenient call times. It’s about influencing and finding your voice across virtual boundaries. One Asian leader working for a US company said, “I wake up, scroll through 200 messages, and find out a decision has already been made without my input even though the decision has direct implications on my region.”

In addition, small talk at the start of virtual meetings often includes references to weather, holidays, or local news events, insider knowledge that others on the team know nothing about. Even basic cues like, “Let’s meet at 3,” reveal who sees their time zone as the default.

Virtual platforms tend to favor fast, direct communicators and can sideline those who are more reflective or come from cultures that value indirectness. Without cues like body language or hallway chats, misunderstandings multiply. Culturally intelligent leaders build culture on virtual teams differently than on in-person ones. They find ways to create moments of connection without frustrating team members who are driven by speed and efficiency. This might mean scheduling short, optional sessions dedicated to rapport-building, separate from high-stakes meetings. Or it could be as simple as opening a call with a prompt like, “What’s one local event or headline that’s big news in your area this week?” This surfaces global awareness while inviting personal insight. When thoughtfully designed, these moments build connection without wasting time or forcing participation.

In addition, successful global teams approach meetings by establishing norms that promote both inclusion and clarity. Virtual meeting norms might be something like, All team meetings will:

• Circulate an agenda ahead of time
• Specify what input is needed, from whom, and by when
• Rotate inconvenient call times
• Avoid hybrid meetings that combine in-person and remote participants

Addressing the challenges of virtual collaboration is not rocket science. But taking the time to develop these kinds of deliberate norms for communication, decision-making, and informal connections can make all the difference in whether the global reach of virtual platforms is an asset or liability for your team.

3. Nationalism Shows Up at Work 

Finally, executives tell me that they’re increasingly seeing how difficult it is to navigate political tensions on their teams. They describe a rise in nationalism among many team members that mirrors what we see on the news. It’s not uncommon to hear staff echo political rhetoric or express suspicion toward colleagues and clients from other countries. Immigration reform, concerns about reproductive rights, and views about tariffs are not solely fodder for the news. They’re issues that directly impact global team members who have strong opinions about it. Gen Z are often the first in line to organize a protest or ask senior leadership during a public town hall what the company’s position is on a controversial social issue.

One leader told me how tensions over the war in Gaza surfaced on his team when an Israeli employee found a “Free Palestine” sticker in the restroom and urged management to address what she perceived as growing antisemitism. The team leader was walking a tightrope. He wanted to express empathy but he worried that any response could be interpreted as taking a political stance that would further inflame tensions. He assured his team member that he wanted her to feel safe and he encouraged her to take a few days off. He asked his team to reach out to her to express care but advised caution in any discussions about the war itself.

Culturally intelligent leaders do not ignore these political dynamics or pretend they are outside the bounds of work. You can’t tell an Israeli employee that a core part of their identity is irrelevant when they’re at work anymore than you can do so with a woman, someone who is queer, or someone who has a disability. Global teams need to be comfortable with conflicting perspectives surrounding political tensions and clarify team norms for respectful expression. They distinguish between personal viewpoints and professional conduct, creating space for disagreement while preventing ideological dominance. Team leaders need to consider their own blind spots, recognizing how silence, tone, and word choice can shape who feels seen and who feels dismissed. In the face of rising polarization, cultural intelligence does not offer easy answers. But it equips leaders to respond with empathy, consistency, and a steady commitment to the team’s shared goals.

[Listen to my NPR interview about navigating political polarization at work]

Global teams fail for reasons that are not always obvious. It’s rarely a single culture clash or time zone issue. More often, it’s the friction of unspoken values, unaddressed dynamics, and unconscious assumptions that quietly unravel trust and performance. Cultural intelligence doesn’t eliminate these challenges. But it equips leaders to lead global teams that are inclusive, effective, and maybe even the context for rich friendships.

The research on culturally intelligent teams and organizations repeatedly shows that explicit, inclusive norms give diverse teams a shared way of working that clarifies expectations while making space for different perspectives. I’m developing some global leadership tools that will bring the power of this research directly to global teams and look forward to sharing more in the coming months. When team leaders develop explicit, inclusive norms, they can lead global teams that are not only high performing but also fun and the source of meaningful work.