Why praise from an American client doesn’t always mean project approval

“Fantastic!” and eight changes. Is someone contradicting themselves?

A Warsaw team presents a design for a new user dashboard to a client from Boston. After the meeting, the client says: “Fantastic job, everyone!” The designer posts in the team chat: “We’ve got approval.” An hour later an email arrives with eight comments, two of them about a key feature. The team feels misled, even though the client never said the product was ready to launch. The client may have genuinely appreciated the progress and the way it was presented, while also noticing significant gaps. The mistake arose when the compliment was taken as a decision. There is no need to decide whether the American was being overly nice. It is enough to go back to the facts: “Thank you for the positive feedback. We want to plan the next stage properly. Are these changes a condition of approval, or suggestions for a later stage?” One calm question can save the team a week spent working on the wrong version.

Why praise is not the same as a quality assessment

In the early 1980s, the linguists Joan Manes and Nessa Wolfson described the typical phrases used in compliments in American English. Their work shows that praise can also serve a social function: it maintains contact, encourages the other person and opens the way to further exchange. It does not, however, concern present-day collaboration between Polish and American companies, so it does not prove that every compliment carries less weight than its Polish equivalent. Cultural psychology too – for example Jeanne Tsai’s work on ideal affective states – describes differences at the level of groups and situations, not the way a particular manager speaks. What is more, in the US you will meet people who are direct, sparing with words and highly critical. The most useful question is not “What do Americans mean?” but “What exactly did the other person want to convey in this situation?” Praise can be sincere and still not provide a basis for starting the next stage of work.

Three positive messages that should not be confused

The first is recognition of the person: “Great effort” – in other words, I appreciate the work you’ve put in. The second is an assessment of an element: “I like the opening” – so let’s keep the beginning of the presentation. The third is a decision: “Approved for release” – meaning that the person authorised to decide has approved the start of the next stage. Each of these sentences sounds positive, but each means something different. If a client says “Love it!”, it is worth asking what exactly they like, rather than assuming they have agreed to the budget, schedule and scope. A similar problem arises in Polish: the boss says “great direction”, and the employee hears “you can go ahead and implement it”. A simple habit helps. Record every decision as: what is being approved, the person authorised to approve it, any remaining conditions and the deadline. If the only thing you know for certain is that the meeting was received warmly, write down “positive reaction”, not “project approved”. This is organisational precision, not a lack of trust.

How to ask for criticism without rejecting the compliment

Don’t start with: “If it’s so fantastic, why are there so many changes?” That puts the other person in the dock. It is better to combine accepting the recognition with a specific question: “Thanks, I’m glad the direction works. Which two changes are essential before approval?” Or, put another way: “Good to hear the direction is right. Which two changes must be made before you can approve it?” You can also ask for the comments to be split into “we must change”, “worth considering” and “for a later stage”. If the praise concerns a particular solution, accept it without anxiously searching for a hidden meaning: “Thank you, we’ll keep that element.” Not every comment needs a lengthy discussion. Sometimes the problem is time pressure, or a meeting where the decision-maker is not present. That is why asking about priorities works better than asking “Do you really like it?” It allows the other person to say clearly what they expect, without taking away their goodwill.

When a compliment masks a risk to the deadline or budget

The biggest problems do not come from the word “awesome” itself, but from actions taken on the strength of it. Imagine a manager who orders the production of materials after a verbal “Looks great”, even though the contract requires sign-off from the legal department. The order does not become safe just because the conversation was enthusiastic. Agree three clear statuses: “ready”, “needs changes” and “awaiting decision”. For each item, add the name of the person approving it and evidence of the decision: a message, a flag in the system or minutes. During the meeting, distinguish between three questions: “Does the content meet expectations?”, “What needs to be changed?” and “Do we have formal permission for the next step?” The answers may differ. This is especially important for deliveries, legal requirements, costs and changes affecting other departments. A good atmosphere supports collaboration, but it does not shift responsibility from the approval process onto a casual comment.

A team can agree shared rules for giving feedback

There is no need to tell colleagues to “sound less enthusiastic” or to “stop taking everything literally”. Agree three things together. First, what clear approval looks like: a specific phrase, a click in a tool or a decision recorded in an email. Second, how you flag critical changes, so that nobody has to guess how important they are. Third, whether quick praise refers to an assessment of the whole piece of work or only a particular part. You might say: “We’ve noticed that we understand the word ‘great’ differently. For the final assessment, could we add a status: approved, changes required or for discussion?” An agreement like this is not a lesson in national manners. Each side can also say what kind of feedback they need in order to work well. One person wants to hear first what worked; another prefers a list of risks straight away. Clear rules leave room for both styles.

Enthusiastic praise can be sincere and yet not mean the project has been approved. The status is determined by specific conditions, the person authorised to decide and a written record of what was agreed. Instead of diagnosing a foreign partner’s intentions, ask what stays unchanged, what needs to be corrected and who approves the next step. That way, goodwill becomes a help to collaboration rather than a source of costly uncertainty.

How Em helps turn ambiguous praise into concrete agreements

A manager receives an email from a partner in the US: “Wonderful progress!”, followed by a long list of changes. He doesn’t want to sound reproachful, but his team needs to know whether it can already plan the rollout. In his conversation with Em, he describes the situation and proposes his own reply. Em helps him remove the sentence “I don’t understand how it can be wonderful if everything needs changing” and replace it with a question about the decision: “Thank you for the positive feedback. Which changes are a condition for approving this version, and which can go into the next release?” He can then rehearse a response to a vague “Let’s see” and prepare a short confirmation of what was agreed after the meeting. If he knows his own communication profile, he can also look at his tendency to take praise literally and his need for unambiguous agreements. Em helps him tailor the message to this specific relationship, rather than guessing the intentions of all Americans. The result is a message after which both sides know what has been approved and which decision they still have to wait for.