“Why doesn’t he just say what he means?”
It is an easy question to ask in an international team. A colleague says little during a meeting, gives a cautious answer or sends a short message without much explanation. To one person, this may seem perfectly normal. To another, something feels missing. Why not simply say clearly what you mean?
The opposite can happen just as easily. Someone speaks very directly, explains exactly what they think should happen and gives feedback without much hesitation. To them, this may be the clearest and most helpful way to communicate. A colleague may experience the same communication as too direct, too forceful or insufficiently sensitive to the situation.
So who is communicating correctly? That may not be the most useful question. The difference is not only about how people communicate, but also about what they believe is needed to make communication clear, appropriate and effective.
How much needs to be said?
Communication can seem simple: you say what you mean and the other person understands. In practice, people bring different experiences, expectations and perspectives to the same situation. As a result, they may have different ideas about what needs to be said explicitly and what the other person can reasonably be expected to understand.
Some people feel comfortable when expectations, agreements and opinions are clearly expressed. If something matters, they prefer to say it directly. Others naturally leave more room for context, relationships and interpretation. They may assume that not everything needs to be said because part of the meaning can be understood from the situation itself.
Neither approach is inherently better. The difference becomes important when people with different expectations work together and assume that their own way of creating clarity is simply the obvious one.
When silence means something different
Imagine a meeting in which the team is discussing an important proposal. At the end, the chair asks: “Does everyone agree with this?” Nobody responds.
For one participant, the silence may simply mean that nobody has an objection. If there were a problem, surely someone would say so. For another participant, the same silence may mean something quite different. Perhaps people are still considering the proposal. Perhaps they do not feel comfortable expressing disagreement openly. Perhaps they expect someone else to take the next step.
The situation has not changed. The interpretation has. This is one of the reasons intercultural communication can be challenging. We do not only interpret what people say. We also interpret what they do not say.
Clarity is not only in the words
The same difference can appear when information is shared.
One colleague sends a short message because they assume the context is already known. To them, the message is efficient and clear. The recipient, however, may be missing important background information and wonder what exactly is expected.
Another colleague might provide much more context in the same situation. Not because they want to make communication unnecessarily complicated, but because they believe that sufficient background is part of making a message understandable.
The same applies to feedback. One manager may believe that it is helpful to say directly what needs to improve. The other person then knows exactly what to work on. Another manager may first provide context, acknowledge what is already working and formulate the areas for improvement more carefully. For them, the relationship and the situation are part of the message.
Both may be trying to achieve the same thing: helping the other person understand and improve. The difference lies in how they believe that goal can best be achieved.
When communication becomes personal
Differences in communication can become more difficult when we stop seeing them as differences and start seeing them as characteristics of the other person.
An explicit communicator may experience a more implicit colleague as vague, reserved or insufficiently clear. The implicit communicator may experience the same colleague as too direct, too forceful or insufficiently sensitive to context.
Meanwhile, both may be convinced that they are communicating clearly. This creates an interesting paradox. Two people can both be trying to communicate clearly and still experience each other as unclear. That is because we do not interpret a message in isolation. We also interpret the way it is delivered through the expectations we bring to the situation.
The question behind the misunderstanding
At this point, it is tempting to ask who should adapt. Should the direct colleague become more careful? Should the other person simply be more explicit?
Before answering that question, there is another step that is often more useful: understanding what lies behind the difference.
The Explicit ↔ Implicit dimension of the Mazzi-Inc. Cultural Profiler makes these preferences visible. It does not describe two fixed types of communicators, nor does it suggest that one approach is better than the other. It helps make visible how people tend to create and interpret meaning in communication and what expectations may follow from that preference.
That insight can change the conversation. Instead of thinking: “Why is this person communicating so unclearly?” we can ask: “What does this person expect to be necessary for creating clarity?”
Perhaps someone expects you to state exactly what you mean. Someone else may assume that the relationship and context provide enough information to understand the intention. And those preferences may change depending on the situation. It is not a fixed label. It is a possible preference that becomes visible in a particular context.
From awareness to intercultural skill
Awareness is useful, but it is not the end point. Intercultural competence is ultimately about being able to act effectively when familiar assumptions no longer automatically apply.
In communication, this might mean asking yourself how much context the other person needs. When giving feedback, it might mean consciously deciding how directly to express what you want to say and how much room to leave for the other person to interpret the message. In a meeting, it might mean not automatically assuming that silence means agreement — or that it means disagreement.
You do not need to adopt a completely different communication style. The skill lies in being able to notice, interpret and then consciously choose how to respond. First understand what is happening in the situation, and then decide what behaviour is most effective for the outcome you want. This reflects an important principle in the Mazzi-Inc. approach: before responding, first understand.
Not more explicit or more implicit — but more aware
The goal of the Explicit ↔ Implicit dimension is therefore not to make people more explicit. Nor is it to encourage people to leave more room for interpretation.
Sometimes a situation requires very clear language. An important agreement, safety instruction or specific responsibility may leave little room for interpretation. In another situation, context may matter more. A sensitive conversation or a situation in which not everyone feels comfortable speaking openly may require greater attention to what is communicated beyond the words themselves.
Effective communication does not necessarily mean that everyone communicates in the same way. It means that people understand what the situation requires and why someone else may approach it differently.
“Just say what you mean” can be very good advice. But sometimes the more useful question is: ‘What does this person need from me to understand what I mean — and what do I need to understand what they are trying to say?’ That is where intercultural communication begins.
What does this mean for your team?
The next time you find yourself thinking that someone is not communicating clearly, it may be worth pausing before judging the communication itself. Perhaps the person really is unclear. But perhaps they have a different idea of what is needed to create understanding.
How obvious is your own way of communicating to the people you work with?
What do you expect others to say explicitly? When do you feel that someone provides too much context — or not enough? And what do you make of silence when you are expecting a response?
Questions like these can open a useful conversation about how people create meaning and how they can adapt their communication when different expectations meet.
The Mazzi-Inc. Cultural Profiler can help make these preferences visible and provide a shared language for exploring how they influence communication, collaboration and leadership. Want to explore what lies behind communication preferences in your team?
Discover the Mazzi-Inc. Cultural Profiler
