The day I realised English wasn't the problem
When I moved to Norway sixteen years ago, I assumed communication would be straightforward.
After all, we were all speaking English.
Then one day I asked a colleague at Tandberg: "Can you do this by tomorrow?"
- The response wasn't yes.
- It wasn't no.
- It was simply... a slightly puzzled look.
Looking back, I realise we weren't struggling because of language.
We were struggling because we were communicating in very different ways.
Coming from Germany, I was used to being direct. In Norway, I quickly discovered that communication was often more indirect, with greater emphasis on context, relationships and shared understanding.
It took me a while to realise that nobody was being difficult.
We simply had different expectations of what good communication looked like.
The problem isn't direct or indirect communication
One of the biggest tensions I see in international teams today isn't language.
It's communication style.
Some people naturally communicate very directly. Others communicate much more indirectly.
Some value explicit instructions and crystal-clear expectations. Others rely more on shared context, relationships and reading between the lines.
Neither approach is better. They're simply different.
I've also realised that communication style is often confused with communication quality.
Direct communication isn't inherently rude. Indirect communication isn't inherently vague.
The words we choose, our tone and our intent matter far more than whether we're naturally direct or indirect.
The real challenge isn't deciding which style is "right."
It's recognising that the people around us may experience our communication very differently from how we intended it.
Two dimensions changed how I think about communication
One of the most useful models I've come across describes communication along two dimensions.
- The first is direct versus indirect communication.
- The second is low-context versus high-context communication.
Direct communication values clarity, efficiency and saying exactly what we mean. Indirect communication often places greater emphasis on relationships, diplomacy and allowing people to interpret meaning from the broader context.
Low-context communication assumes that important information should be communicated explicitly. High-context communication assumes that much of the meaning already exists within the relationship, the situation or the shared culture.
Neither is universally better. Different cultures, organisations and even individual teams develop different preferences.
Understanding those differences has completely changed how I approach leadership, facilitation and collaboration.
The most interesting conversation usually happens after this exercise
Whenever I'm working with international or cross-functional teams, I often invite participants to complete a simple reflection exercise.
Two questions, two sticky notes
- How do I naturally communicate?
- How do I prefer others to communicate with me?
At first, people assume the answers will be identical.
Surprisingly often, they aren't.
Someone who naturally communicates very directly may actually appreciate receiving sensitive feedback in a more thoughtful, indirect way.
Someone who prefers indirect communication may still want clear, explicit expectations when priorities are changing.
The discussion that follows is almost always more valuable than the exercise itself.
People begin to understand not only themselves, but also one another.
Misunderstandings suddenly make sense. Different behaviours become easier to interpret.
And teams often realise that many of their frustrations have far less to do with personality than with different communication preferences.
Great communicators don't have one style
One of the biggest lessons Norway taught me is that great communication isn't about finding your own style.
It's about developing the flexibility to choose the style that best serves the situation and the people in front of you.
There are moments when direct communication creates clarity and helps teams move quickly.
There are other moments when slowing down, asking more questions and communicating more indirectly helps build trust, navigate disagreement or encourage different perspectives.
The same is true for context.
Sometimes people need detailed explanations. Sometimes they only need a few words because the shared understanding already exists.
Leadership is often about recognising the difference.
A final reflection
Looking back, moving to Norway didn't make me less direct.
It made me more adaptable.
I still naturally communicate quite directly.
But I've learned that effective communication isn't about saying things the way that's most comfortable for me.
It's about communicating in a way that helps the other person understand, contribute and succeed.
Perhaps that's what great communication really is.
Not mastering one style.
