“First Names Already?” — Closeness or Professional Distance?

Nia and Marek meet for the first time. Nia immediately uses first names; Marek starts more formally.

— Hi, Marek. I’m Nia.
— Good morning, ma’am.

Nia wonders whether Marek is deliberately keeping her at a distance. Marek believes he is showing an unfamiliar colleague ordinary professional respect.

What really happened

Nia reduces distance because moving quickly to first names signals openness and a peer-like relationship to her. Marek starts formally because that is exactly how he shows respect to someone he does not yet know well. Each initially interprets the other person’s behavior using their own rule. Nia wonders whether Marek wants to keep her at arm’s length. Marek may feel that Nia is skipping the formal stage of getting acquainted too quickly. Importantly, neither form is a problem in itself. The problem appears when people assume that everyone assigns the same meaning to the same form of address.

What the research says

Language has long signaled both closeness and power relationships. Classic research on forms of address suggested that pronouns and politeness forms can reflect two different dimensions: status and a sense of solidarity or closeness (power and solidarity; Brown & Gilman, 1960). This is not a rulebook for how any nationality or generation uses formal address. Meaning varies by country, industry, age, relationship history, and individual preference. The model does highlight one useful point: greater formality does not have to mean coldness, and greater informality does not have to mean disrespect. The same intention — respect — can be expressed through different linguistic choices.

How to handle it

Instead of treating the form of address as a judgment about the relationship, simply ask about the preference: “Would you rather keep things formal, or use first names?” In international teams, asking becomes even more useful because intuition from one language may not transfer cleanly into another. The level of formality also does not have to be fixed forever; relationships naturally change over time. The general rule is: forms of address are social signals, but their meaning is better agreed in one sentence than guessed for weeks from someone else’s formality or familiarity.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Empatyzer can show Nia and Marek that first names versus formal address is not merely a linguistic detail but a social signal to which they attach different meanings. Nia reduces distance to create ease and openness; Marek uses initial formality to show respect and give the relationship structure. The cultural layer and profile comparison can flag the mismatch before either person interprets the other as cold or overfamiliar. Em does not need to decide which form is “better.” It can suggest the simplest solution: ask directly what feels natural to the other person. In international teams, small differences like this can recur frequently, so group-level insights can support flexible norms instead of one forced rule. Micro-lessons reinforce an important principle: do not infer emotional distance from a form of address before checking what that form means to the person using it.