Imagine that someone introduces a new idea in a team meeting. They explain what the idea could achieve and describe the principle behind it. The argument makes sense, but one colleague is not yet convinced. They want to know whether the approach has worked before, what results it produced and what evidence there is from real situations.
Another colleague reacts differently. For them, the practical examples are useful, but they first want to understand the underlying concept. If the principle makes sense and the different elements fit together, they may already consider the idea worth exploring, even if there is not yet much practical evidence.
Who is being more reasonable? There is no simple answer. Both people are trying to understand whether the idea makes sense. They are simply looking for different kinds of information before they consider an argument convincing.
How do we make sense of information?
People use different ways of reasoning when they analyse information, solve problems and make decisions. Some prefer to start with what they can observe, experience or verify in practice. Others are more comfortable starting with concepts, principles or broader patterns and using these to understand a situation.
An empirical approach tends to place greater value on observable facts, practical experience and evidence from real situations. Someone with this preference may want to test an idea, look at previous results or see what happens in practice before drawing a conclusion.
A more theoretical approach may place greater value on concepts, models, principles and broader patterns. Someone with this preference may first want to understand how different elements fit together and use a conceptual framework to analyse a situation or anticipate what might happen.
Neither approach is inherently better. In fact, both can contribute to good thinking and sound decision-making. The difference lies in what people look for when they are trying to understand something and what they consider a convincing basis for a conclusion.
When evidence meets theory
This difference can become particularly visible when a team discusses a new idea.
One colleague may ask for examples, previous results or evidence that the idea works in practice. They may feel that an attractive concept is not enough to justify action. Before committing to it, they want to know what has happened in comparable situations and what can actually be observed or measured.
Another colleague may approach the same discussion by asking about the concept behind the idea. What assumptions does it make? How do the different elements fit together? What principle explains why this approach should work? If the underlying reasoning is sound, they may be willing to explore the idea even when practical evidence is still limited.
Neither person necessarily has a greater appetite for evidence or a more analytical mind. They are simply moving from information to a conclusion in different ways.
The same difference can appear when solving a problem. Someone with a more empirical preference may begin by examining what has happened before and what can currently be observed. A more theoretical thinker may first look for a pattern or principle that could explain why the problem is occurring.
What do we need before we act?
Different approaches to reasoning can also influence decision-making.
Imagine that a team has identified a possible solution but does not yet have all the information it would normally like to have. One person may prefer to wait until there is enough practical evidence to support the decision. Another may feel comfortable moving forward because the underlying logic is sufficiently clear and the remaining uncertainty can be addressed as the situation develops.
This difference can become particularly relevant in innovation and change. Experimentation often involves acting before every consequence is known, while some decisions require a stronger evidence base before action is justified. What counts as “enough information” may therefore differ considerably between colleagues, even when they share the same objective.
The same applies to sharing knowledge. One person may naturally explain how something works by using examples from experience, while another may begin with the underlying principles and only then move towards specific examples.
Both may be communicating effectively from their own perspective. The question is whether the other person receives the kind of information they need to make sense of the subject.
When preferences meet
This is where different ways of reasoning can easily lead to misinterpretation.
Someone who prefers empirical reasoning may experience a theoretical colleague as abstract, overly conceptual or disconnected from practical reality. The theoretical colleague may experience the same person as too focused on individual examples or insufficiently interested in the bigger picture.
The disagreement may therefore appear to be about the quality of someone's thinking, when it is actually about what each person considers convincing evidence. One person wants to see what works before drawing a conclusion. Another wants to understand the underlying principle before deciding whether something is likely to work. Neither interpretation necessarily tells the whole story.
Once we recognise that people may reason differently, we can become more curious about what they are looking for and why. Instead of wondering why someone does not seem to understand the argument, we can ask a more useful question: what would help this person find the argument convincing?
That small shift can change the conversation. It moves us away from judging the other person's reasoning and towards understanding what kind of information might help them engage with the idea.
From awareness to intercultural skill
Recognising different ways of reasoning is a first step. The real intercultural skill develops when we can use that awareness in everyday work: when analysing information, solving problems, making decisions, presenting ideas or sharing knowledge.
The goal is not to become more empirical or more theoretical. It is to recognise what the situation requires, understand what others may need in order to make sense of the information and choose how to communicate.
Sometimes a strong argument needs concrete evidence. At other times, understanding the underlying principle may be what allows people to see why an approach could work. Often, the most effective way of communicating an idea is to connect the two: explain the principle, then show what it looks like in practice.
The intercultural skill lies in being able to recognise what kind of reasoning will help people move forward together.
What does this mean for your team?
The next time a discussion seems to go in circles, it may be worth asking whether people actually disagree about the idea itself.
Perhaps one person is still looking for evidence while another is already convinced by the underlying principle. Perhaps one colleague wants to see what has worked before, while another is more interested in understanding the pattern that could explain why something works.
What do people in your team need before they consider an idea convincing?
And what happens when colleagues have different answers to that question?
These questions can open a valuable conversation about how your team analyses information, evaluates ideas and makes decisions.
The Mazzi-Inc. Cultural Profiler makes cultural preferences visible that may influence how people analyse information, solve problems, make decisions and share knowledge. Want to explore how different ways of reasoning influence your team?
Discover the Mazzi-Inc. Cultural Profiler
