When working with Americans, expect that their default assumption is that information should be shared rather than withheld. The cultural baseline is openness; restriction requires justification. Americans often feel entitled to information affecting them and expect explanations when information is withheld.

This default shapes both formal structures—laws requiring disclosure, regulations mandating transparency—and informal expectations about how people should behave. If you are holding information that others might find relevant, Americans will generally expect you to share it unless you have good reason not to. The burden falls on those who would restrict information to justify the restriction.

When you withhold information without explanation, Americans may interpret the withholding as secretive, suspicious, or unfair. Transparency earns trust; unexplained concealment erodes it.

Americans understand information sharing as creating and maintaining relationships. Sharing builds trust, closeness, and connection; withholding creates distance and suspicion. When someone shares information with you, they are extending trust and including you.

When someone withholds information, they are creating distance. This relational understanding applies across all relationship types—family, professional, social. Americans evaluate relationship quality partly by how openly people communicate.

The relationship where nothing is shared barely qualifies as relationship; the relationship characterized by open sharing is healthy and close. When working with Americans, recognize that your information sharing behavior communicates about the relationship itself. Sharing signals inclusion and trust. Withholding—even when unintentional—signals exclusion or distrust and may damage the relationship.

Americans expect information to be pushed, not just pulled. Those with relevant information should proactively share it with those who might need it, without waiting for specific requests. “Why didn’t you tell me?” is a common complaint when someone discovers they lacked information another had.

The response “You didn’t ask” is culturally inadequate—you should have shared anyway. This creates obligations for those with information to anticipate who might need it and to share proactively. Managers should keep teams informed; colleagues should share relevant information without prompting; anyone with useful information should disseminate it.

When working with Americans, do not wait to be asked for information that could be useful. Push relevant information to those who could benefit, and expect that others will do the same for you.

American culture actively stigmatizes information hoarding. The person who withholds information that should be shared is not merely missing an opportunity but is doing something wrong—being selfish, political, or dysfunctional. Information hoarding in organizations is diagnosed as problem requiring intervention.

The stigma creates moral pressure toward sharing beyond merely thinking sharing is nice. When Americans discover that someone had relevant information and did not share it, they often feel wronged. Working with Americans requires understanding that holding onto information when others could benefit from it will be negatively judged. You may be seen as trying to maintain power, create dependency, or avoid accountability. The cultural expectation is that useful information should flow to where it can be used, not be accumulated as personal resource.

Americans understand information as enabling people to act competently. The person with relevant information can make better decisions and coordinate more effectively; the person lacking information is disadvantaged.

This creates ethical weight around information sharing: providing information enables capability; withholding information disables. Americans invest heavily in getting information to where it enables action—through meetings, systems, training, and documentation. The return on information sharing is capability improvement.

When working with Americans, recognize that they see information sharing as practically important, not merely nice. Failing to share information that would help others function better is seen as causing harm through omission. You are expected to help others succeed by giving them the information they need.

American information culture creates and maintains multiple channels through which information flows. No single channel monopolizes; various pathways exist for information to reach those who need it. This redundancy ensures that important information can flow despite obstacles. Organizations create formal and informal channels; societies create multiple media; individuals use various means to share.

When working with Americans, expect that they will both seek and share information through multiple channels. Important information may come through meetings, emails, conversations, documents, or other pathways. The commitment is to ensuring information reaches the right people; the specific channel is implementation detail. Be prepared to both share and receive information through whatever channels work in your context.

Americans expect information to flow in multiple directions, not merely from authority to subordinate or from expert to novice. Those who receive information are also expected to share information relevant from their position. The employee should inform the manager as well as vice versa; the team member should share with colleagues as well as receive from them. Systems where information only flows downward feel authoritarian to Americans.

Effective organizations enable information to flow up, down, and sideways. When working with Americans, expect that they will want to provide information to you, not just receive from you. Create channels for information flow in all directions. Leaders who only talk and never listen seem out of touch; relationships where only one party shares seem extractive. Reciprocal information exchange is the expected norm.

While American culture defaults toward openness, it recognizes domains where privacy is legitimate. These are bounded exceptions, not alternative defaults. Personal matters involving individual autonomy, competitive information with strategic value, security matters where disclosure causes harm, and sensitive information where privacy protects individuals—these may warrant legitimate restriction.

The key distinction is between privacy (legitimate boundary-setting) and secrecy (illegitimate concealment). Privacy is respected; secrecy is stigmatized.

When you need to restrict information with Americans, be prepared to explain why the restriction is legitimate—to demonstrate that it falls on the privacy side rather than the secrecy side. Unexplained concealment will be interpreted negatively. Legitimate privacy claims are understood and respected, but they require justification.