I once attended an intercultural management conference in Switzerland, bringing together mainly Swiss and French experts.
Everything had been designed with the precision of a Swiss watch… until the mechanism began to slip.
The discussions were rich and stimulating — but the French speakers consistently ran over their allotted time.
To keep the agenda intact, the Swiss participants quietly shortened their own interventions.
The effect was almost paradoxical: the more the Swiss stepped back to protect the schedule, the more space the French naturally took to develop their ideas.
By the end of the day, Swiss frustration finally surfaced, leaving their French colleagues genuinely surprised.
Nothing explicit had been said — yet the tension had been building all along.
💡 Two perceptions of time, two cultural signals:
👉 For the Swiss, respecting the schedule is a way of respecting others — it creates structure, fairness, and a reliable framework of trust.
👉 For the French, what matters most is the depth and quality of the exchange — and allowing ideas to unfold can legitimately mean stretching the time slightly.
This gap is subtle, yet deeply rooted.
It reminds us that in any intercultural environment, clarity of expectations is essential — not only about what we discuss, but also about how we collaborate.
What truly matters to each side? What is acceptable flexibility? Where does discomfort begin?
In this situation, the unspoken became the real point of friction.
And yet, the day itself could have offered the perfect opportunity… to talk about time.
