In any case, English is the most popular second-language in 55 countries, so it's not a bad guess to write this article in terms of English.
The author could have couched the entire article from the point of view that a native speaker is difficult for non-native speakers to understand. I was simply pointing out that the article points an accusing finger at a particular group, when the issue at hand isn't a particular language, but the situation in question.
This is definitely something that communicators and collaborators need to be aware of, but the article, at least to me, demonizes a particular group even though the issue isn't inherent to that group.
It is just a matter of native nuances being difficult to understand for non-natives of any language...
And also the fact that English is the language most used for international meetings anywhere in the world.
I speak passable Spanish, and have encountered the same "cultural dissonance" when dealing with a native speaker in a room full of non-native speakers. When you grow up embedded in a language and culture, you don't realize when you slip into colloquialisms and culture references that don't translate well.
That whole business deal the article opens with is a joke. It's not the native speaker's fault, nor the word's fault. It was the recipient who picked randomly when faced with an unclear choice. If you're unclear, as for clarification. I worked with an international collaboration of scientists during college and that was one of things you learned quickly. No one has the same frame of reference you do, so make sure you're all on the same page. Hell, simply rephrasing your understanding in a reply before you take action can clear this up in a single message. "So you wanted us to X? Got it!". Then the other party has the opportunity to step in and say, "No, do Y".