Sergio Ingravalle/Ikon Images
High-stakes disruptions test businesses’ cultural agility as well as their operational resilience. As supply chains stretch across continents and leadership teams span time zones, cultural agility becomes a business essential. Many crises now unfold across cultures as much as they do across borders, but few executives are prepared for what happens when their best-laid response plans are lost in cultural translation. Even small differences in tone, timing, and language can determine whether leaders are seen as trustworthy or tone-deaf in the moments that matter most.
Subtle cultural divides can collapse into relational ruptures, even between neighbors and partners. In March 2026, an Air Canada aircraft collided with a fire vehicle on landing at New York’s LaGuardia airport. The two pilots died and many passengers were injured. In the immediate aftermath, Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau issued a public message expressing condolences and outlining the airline’s response. He spoke completely in English, beyond saying “bonjour” and “merci” in opening and closing. His statement was clear, operationally appropriate, and accompanied by French subtitles.
Criticism centered not on the substance of Rousseau’s response but on its delivery. Air Canada is headquartered in Quebec, a bilingual province, where the French language carries particular cultural significance. For many of the Quebecois affected, including the family of one of the pilots, the CEO’s English address came across as disregard. Public criticism and scrutiny mounted rapidly, and within days, Rousseau announced his resignation from the airline.
This episode illustrates a recurring challenge in global crisis management — and, remarkably, closely mirrors an earlier incident. In 2013, a runaway train owned by a U.S.-based rail company exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, destroying the town and killing 47 people. Five days later, company chairman Edward Burkhardt arrived from Chicago and, like Rousseau, spoke only in English to a Quebecois community still in shock. What he viewed as a transparent defense of his company’s decisions was interpreted by the grieving community as arrogance and detachment. To them, leadership meant presence, compassion, humility, and acknowledgment of loss.
The wreckage of le train d’enfer — “the train from hell” — exposed how quickly a misreading of cultural and emotional contexts can derail a high-stakes situation. In cross-cultural contexts, effectiveness is determined not only by what is communicated but how it is conveyed. Effective leaders align their message with local expectations of empathy, respect, and shared identity. An impersonal response, such as substituting language-translation subtitles for direct engagement, can widen the gap between a leader’s intention and how that intent is perceived.
Major disruptions magnify hidden fractures, and cultural disconnects are among the deepest challenges that a company can face. In this article, we focus on organizational crises that cross national boundaries, such as transportation disasters, infrastructure failures, supply chain disruptions, safety incidents, and reputational emergencies affecting multinational businesses.
Common Frictions That Impede Crisis Response
Decades of research have documented how deeply cultural norms shape organizational behavior. Around the world, we have seen well-prepared organizations experience stress or unravel because a response that worked in one country backfired in another. Most leaders underestimate the role that culture plays in a crisis in terms of who speaks up, who takes charge, and how quickly teams move when everything is on the line.
Crucially, the meaning of a crisis itself is culturally interpreted. What individual societies expect from leaders in moments of disruption — whether transparency, humility, decisiveness, or restraint — can vary widely. For global organizations, the future of crisis leadership belongs to those who can lead across cultural divides.
How, exactly, does culture interfere with crisis response? In our work with senior executives, three pressure points have shown up again and again.
Communication Breakdown
In some national and professional cultures, direct communication is expected: Say it plainly, quickly, and publicly. Others prioritize nuance and saving face: Say it indirectly or behind closed doors. In a crisis, this behavioral gap can be deadly. One regional manager’s hesitation to escalate may look like complacency to headquarters, but the manager may be signaling danger as clearly as they know how.
Few examples illustrate this more starkly than the often-studied crash of Avianca Flight 052, a Colombian airliner that ran out of fuel while approaching New York’s Kennedy International Airport in 1990. As the aircraft circled in worsening weather, the crew repeatedly informed air traffic controllers that fuel was becoming critical. Yet they never used the explicit distress phrases “mayday,” “pan-pan,” or “emergency,” which would have triggered immediate priority handling by air traffic controllers.
The pilots’ training emphasized courtesy and deference to authority, consistent with both Colombian cultural norms and airline cockpit hierarchies. American air traffic controllers, operating within a highly procedural communication system, interpreted the pilots’ indirect message as a description of a manageable problem, not an urgent situation. Each side believed it was communicating clearly, but linguistic habits, professional training, and cultural expectations combined to obscure the danger.
The lesson for global leaders is sobering: When cultural assumptions shape how people signal urgency, misunderstanding itself becomes a systemic risk to manage.
Pushback Under Pressure
Across cultures, expectations vary in how, or whether, people lower in an organizational hierarchy tend to question their superiors. In some environments, employees are generally comfortable challenging leaders or raising concerns directly. In others, hierarchy carries stronger expectations of deference, and speaking up without invitation can be seen as inappropriate. These differences become especially consequential during a crisis.
If authority is rarely challenged, critical information may never reach senior leaders, even when front-line employees see danger. The risk of critical information being softened, delayed, or discounted is amplified in global organizations due to differing cultural expectations about hierarchy. What appears to be alignment at the top may reflect hesitation or constraint further down. Silence from local teams does not necessarily signal a lack of awareness or agreement but deference and respect.
The cockpit transcripts from Avianca Flight 052 reveal the danger of this dynamic. Despite the flight engineer’s repeated warnings about dangerously low fuel levels, he was below the pilots in the cockpit hierarchy and thus expressed himself cautiously, without direct commands or clear escalation. In response, the pilots took no decisive action regarding his concerns.
Leaders must recognize when their own style suppresses input. Empowering local voices often requires deliberate outreach and clear decision protocols that make it safe to raise concerns. This is particularly important in more hierarchical cultures, where hesitation to question authority can slow a crisis response.
Timing Misalignment
To some people, every minute counts in a crisis. To others, process
