Direct and Indirect Communication

[proteanmix]

This is a returning topic in my mind, directness and assertiveness.

I see very often on this forum (less so IRL, but whatever) someone often advising another person to be direct or complaining about the lack of directness from others, which often leads to declarations of insecurity and immaturity towards the "indirect" party.

So I've been trying to think of some scenarios that I would like people to categorize as direct or indirect. I'm trying to figure out what exactly are people's ideas of direct. All of these scenarios have happened to me.

Scene 1
When I worked at Starbucks and when it was slow us baristas would sit around talk. If we still had unfinished duties to do the manager would eventually start assigning us tasks around the store (effectively ending our chat sessions) but did not say anything to us about our socializing.

Scene 2
When I worked at Victoria's Secret I so enjoyed one of my coworkers there. Basically we'd come to work just to talk and hang out. We'd typically choose some low customer interaction task and chit chat while we were working. Once our manager came up to us in full conversational thrall and said, "My! Aren't you two chatty Cathys!"

Scene 3
Recently I went to get blood drawn, the lab tech put on gloves and opened every drawer in the area looking for something and even left the room and I heard her rifling through drawers in the other room. She came back to me smiled and said "OK, ready!" I waited to see if she was going to change gloves again but when she picked up my arm I said "Are you going to change your gloves?"

Scenario 4 (stole this one)
Imagine you've just hired a new consultant whose job is to help you improve your communication. The first time you meet with her, she hands you an article and says, "Sit down and read this article I've written. Think about it carefully. Then I want to talk to you about it."

How would people rate the directness of each of these scenes?

I wonder if directness is related to a person's ability to pick up on hints, innuendos, and reading between the lines. Think about alternate versions of each scenario as well, i.e. being perceived as bossy, authoritarian, micromanaging, passive, etc.

Also, this ties into calling people passive-aggressive as well. I sometimes think one person's passive-aggressiveness is another's blunt force trauma. One person will accuse another of being passive-aggressive, while the accusee will assert they were being direct. Once again, I think it depends on how a person defines direct and how much directness is necessary for them to pick up on what others are saying.

Thoughts?

 

[Athenian200]

Scene 1
When I worked at Starbucks and when it was slow us baristas would sit around talk. If we still had unfinished duties to do the manager would eventually start assigning us tasks around the store (effectively ending our chat sessions) but did not say anything to us about our socializing.

Indirect. It probably achieves what he wanted (you to stop socializing and get back to work), but it doesn't necessarily communicate the "stop socializing" part unless you're paying attention. Really only communicates the "I want you to work" part. It's fairly good indirect communication, though.

Scene 2
When I worked at Victoria's Secret I so enjoyed one of my coworkers there. Basically we'd come to work just to talk and hang out. We'd typically choose some low customer interaction task and chit chat while we were working. Once our manager came up to us in full conversational thrall and said, "My! Aren't you two chatty Cathys!"

Very direct. Downright blunt. He thinks you talk too much. Chatty Cathy is pretty derogatory, but he had a right to say it being the manager.

Scene 3
Recently I went to get blood drawn, the lab tech put on gloves and opened every drawer in the area looking for something and even left the room and I heard her rifling through drawers in the other room. She came back to me smiled and said "OK, ready!" I waited to see if she was going to change gloves again but when she picked up my arm I said "Are you going to change your gloves?"

Very direct, but understandable. A little embarrassing for the lab tech, but understandable given how important it is for the gloves to be clean.

Scenario 4 (stole this one)
Imagine you've just hired a new consultant whose job is to help you improve your communication. The first time you meet with her, she hands you an article and says, "Sit down and read this article I've written. Think about it carefully. Then I want to talk to you about it."

Very direct and to the point. She tells him exactly what she wants him to do, and in what order. It comes off a little commanding, since she doesn't say "please," and doesn't seem to be acknowledging that he's above her. But it's very good communication otherwise.

 

[Kalach]

Direct to what kind of point? Someone can be direct as all get out, but if their focus is not the same focus as the other guy, the other guy isn't going to call them direct. The other guy might even think the "direct" person is hedging or hiding. Like, an INTJ might say, "Get out of my house!" and the other guy complains, "No, tell me directly, what do you feel about me! Why won't you be direct!"

 

[Athenian200]

Like, an INTJ might say, "Get out of my house!" and the other guy complains, "No, tell me directly, what do you feel about me! Why won't you be direct!"

But it's obvious what the INTJ feels. The INTJ hates your guts, and feels that you're intruding.

Sounds like a typical INTJ feeling. Sometimes I feel that way too, when I'm really drained...

 

[Usehername]

@Protean--I think you have started a discussion many could benefit from, but could you clarify your objective/presumptions for categorizing as indirect/direct wrt your 4 situations? Or flesh out your main idea in more words? Especially for your first two situations, you're presuming links between the managers having an agenda and their words relating to that agenda, while not everyone would make those same presumptions unless you spell it out and we start from the same place.

 

[bcvcdc]

imo, to be direct would be to not have to try to read into posts to find out if there is some hidden gem that isn't being said directly in the post. it just takes too long to do that and i don't have that kind of time. but you guys carry on as usual. don't mind me.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Here is how I see how each of these four scenarios:

Scene 1
When I worked at Starbucks and when it was slow us baristas would sit around talk. If we still had unfinished duties to do the manager would eventually start assigning us tasks around the store (effectively ending our chat sessions) but did not say anything to us about our socializing.

To me this is direct. Why? Because the manager wants to run an efficient store, so if there are unfinished tasks the most direct way to get them done is to tell people to do the tasks. The socializing aspect is irrelevant.

Scene 2
When I worked at Victoria's Secret I so enjoyed one of my coworkers there. Basically we'd come to work just to talk and hang out. We'd typically choose some low customer interaction task and chit chat while we were working. Once our manager came up to us in full conversational thrall and said, "My! Aren't you two chatty Cathys!"

Indirect and also stupid. Does he care about your socializing or does he really just want you to get more work done? The direct way would be to focus on the tasks he wanted done rather than on your socializing.

Scene 3
Recently I went to get blood drawn, the lab tech put on gloves and opened every drawer in the area looking for something and even left the room and I heard her rifling through drawers in the other room. She came back to me smiled and said "OK, ready!" I waited to see if she was going to change gloves again but when she picked up my arm I said "Are you going to change your gloves?"

Mostly direct. You didn't say why you wanted her to change gloves, but if she didn't get the point she'd probably just ask what you meant.

Scenario 4 (stole this one)
Imagine you've just hired a new consultant whose job is to help you improve your communication. The first time you meet with her, she hands you an article and says, "Sit down and read this article I've written. Think about it carefully. Then I want to talk to you about it."

Direct but uninformative. She tells me directly what to do, but doesn't tell me why I'm doing it.

 

[proteanmix]

@Protean--I think you have started a discussion many could benefit from, but could you clarify your objective/presumptions for categorizing as indirect/direct wrt your 4 situations? Or flesh out your main idea in more words? Especially for your first two situations, you're presuming links between the managers having an agenda and their words relating to that agenda, while not everyone would make those same presumptions unless you spell it out and we start from the same place.

Yah, I know I'm hazy and it's being done on purpose.

This really stems from comments I see on the forum more than my real life communication. I'd actually written way more but cut out as much of my personal opinion I could and still get my point across.

The situations are given because I know which ones I think are direct/indirect, but I want to see if others view what I view as direct/indirect. I'm trying to get an idea of what people think of when they say being direct/indirect and even passive-aggressive behaviors that I think are being miscategorized. Kinda like what Kalach said.

There's also some typological research I'm doing, just to see why some people seem to have problems with other types in communication styles (which can be a product of culture, environment, training, sex, etc.) with communication being superlative to type. I'm thinking about ExxJs being generally direct communicators and most of the people on this forum being INxP and INxPs misinterpreting the communication styles of ExxJs, specifically ESxJs (bossy, demanding, railroading, etc.).

Cause dammit I just don't have the problems with ESxJs that other people have, and I want to have those problems!!! :steam: I feel so left out.

 

[Kalach]

But it's obvious what the INTJ feels.

Well yeah, sorta. But if the other guy has some overwhelming interest beyond merely doing what the INTJ commands, the other guy'll complain that something is missing. And may directly require some direct statement of something directly other than the passing fancy that he should vacate the premises. "You're not being direct! You're not telling me what I need to hear!" That kind of thing.

 

[Jaguar]

The first 3 have none. #4 is direct.

#1 Indirect coward unworthy of management.

#2 Indirect coward unworthy of management.

#3 Asking a question like that isn't being direct. It's hedging.

#4 Clear example of being direct, and issuing a directive.

 

[pippi]

I wonder if directness is related to a person's ability to pick up on hints, innuendos, and reading between the lines. Think about alternate versions of each scenario as well, i.e. being perceived as bossy, authoritarian, micromanaging, passive, etc.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To the paranoid, everything seems indirect and to those who can't see past their nose on their face, everything seems literal. Those are two extremes, but everyone falls somewhere on that spectrum.

Also, this ties into calling people passive-aggressive as well. I sometimes think one person's passive-aggressiveness is another's blunt force trauma. One person will accuse another of being passive-aggressive, while the accusee will assert they were being direct. Once again, I think it depends on how a person defines direct and how much directness is necessary for them to pick up on what others are saying.

Sure, passive aggressive is in the eye of the beholder. (yes, I'm full of cliches this morning) Someone may think/feel they are being tactful and someone else may see that as passive aggressive. Someone may think/feel they are being direct and someone else may see that as aggressive.

All your scenarios can be effective or ineffective, depending on the situation and the people involved. Sometimes a hint is all it takes to get your message across and sometimes you have to be blunt. Communication styles matter. While you may not get your point across by hinting to someone who doesn't read between the lines, you are equally likely to not get your point across by confronting someone who recoils or retreats at the first sign of any conflict.

 

[lamp]

This thread: indirect.

Especially for your first two situations, you're presuming links between the managers having an agenda and their words relating to that agenda, while not everyone would make those same presumptions unless you spell it out and we start from the same place.

The first two situations I cannot tell if the manager is actually communicating anything (meaningful).

but doesn't tell me why I'm doing it.

Is it not clear that she wants to talk to you about it?

Scenario 3: indirect. Would probably make me feel stupid if I were the lab tech. I would probably prefer to hear "will you change your gloves please?" (this makes me feel less stupid :] )

Scenario 4: direct. I like this wording/situation.

 

[Usehername]

Scene 1
When I worked at Starbucks and when it was slow us baristas would sit around talk. If we still had unfinished duties to do the manager would eventually start assigning us tasks around the store (effectively ending our chat sessions) but did not say anything to us about our socializing.


Scene 2
When I worked at Victoria's Secret I so enjoyed one of my coworkers there. Basically we'd come to work just to talk and hang out. We'd typically choose some low customer interaction task and chit chat while we were working. Once our manager came up to us in full conversational thrall and said, "My! Aren't you two chatty Cathys!"

To me these are both an indirect way of saying, "you're getting paid--work."

However, for example, at my gong show of a job at a cycle and ski shop, the management does not manage effectively so I am not really willing to work hard for them when there's no logical reason to (logical reasons reduced to (a) customers being in the shop or (b) it's dirty and needs to be cleaned).

I've taken the initiative to spend all afternoon overhauling the shoe storage area, only to return a week later for my next shift and have it in shambles--no big deal, unless this is representative of how the entire shop works and a pattern repeated ad infinitum with every employee who takes initative to pride themselves in their work. We get paid minimum wage, and aren't even rewarded by the management respecting our hard work to say to others, "hey--it's organized--try to keep it that way."

It's all students there, so we each work a few hours a week, but it's ineffectively managed. After a year of trying, and seeing fellow employees overhaul areas of the shop only to have it in disrepair when we show up the next week, and talking to the management about it several times only to have them do nothing because they don't care, none of us are going to get off our ass to work if there's no customers, and the shop has been vacuumed/dusted/emptied garbages.

So a third element here is a recognition of standards being respectfully imposed in an indirect manner, but an unwillingness to subscribe to the standards if there is no respect for the authority figures. I'd get off my butt and do the request, but I rarely take initiative at my shop anymore and don't go above and beyond until I'm asked.

Scene 3
Recently I went to get blood drawn, the lab tech put on gloves and opened every drawer in the area looking for something and even left the room and I heard her rifling through drawers in the other room. She came back to me smiled and said "OK, ready!" I waited to see if she was going to change gloves again but when she picked up my arm I said "Are you going to change your gloves?"

Direct. I mean, it's not full-blown, "don't touch me with your contaminated hands, you incompetent health care worker who can't remember basic rules taught to you from day one," but it's perfectly clear what you're communicating.

Scenario 4 (stole this one)
Imagine you've just hired a new consultant whose job is to help you improve your communication. The first time you meet with her, she hands you an article and says, "Sit down and read this article I've written. Think about it carefully. Then I want to talk to you about it."

The last one would be direct but communicated very politely.


I think the element here with some Ts is the bullshit factor. Sometimes we get it but we don't subscribe to the social conventions because they're bullshit given our past history with that person. Whereas an F would just as easily (more easily?) see the bullshit, but they probably value the convention more. When your goals have little to nothing to do with harmony because you have an issue you're trying to address, pretending to value harmony first and foremost is often bullshit. You can respectfully communicate something when you're peeved without needing harmony. I don't like the imposition of harmony being a value. I don't necessarily value it.

 

[Orangey]

Well protean, I think the significant variance of the answers you've received in just two pages should indicate that, indeed, what is considered "direct" and "indirect" communication cannot be determined by the situation alone.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Is it not clear that she wants to talk to you about it?

In scenario 4 I am not clear if the article itself is about communication, or if the article is on something unrelated, and then afterward I am to practice good communication (or possibly it's both).

 

[INTP]

#1 direct. He puts you to work

#2 indirect. He tells you that you speak, not that you dont work

#3 direct. You asked directly if he will change gloves

#4 direct. She tells you what to do without talking about things that arent important to the matter

 

[lamp]

In scenario 4 I am not clear if the article itself is about communication, or if the article is on something unrelated, and then afterward I am to practice good communication (or possibly it's both).

I see the content of the article to be irrelevant. The point is that I am supposed to think about it, and then discuss it. And I do not see any specific expectation that I should practice good communication when I eventually discuss the article.

You asked directly if he will change gloves

She asked if the technician was going to change gloves. If I were the technician I would think to myself "Why would I change my gloves? I have no reason to change my gloves" and then would realize that I am mistaken and that I do in fact have a reason, and that is why she asked the question/

 

[Jaguar]

She asked if the technician was going to change gloves. If I were the technician I would think to myself "Why would I change my gloves? I have no reason to change my gloves" and then would realize that I am mistaken and that I do in fact have a reason, and that is why she asked the question

If people were direct to begin with, you wouldn't have to go through any of those steps.

"Change your gloves, please. You just touched 50,000 surfaces."

Hyperbole is optional.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I see the content of the article to be irrelevant. The point is that I am supposed to think about it, and then discuss it. And I do not see any specific expectation that I should practice good communication when I eventually discuss the article.

I think we are seeing scenario 4 pretty differently. Let me try to clarify the way I interpret it. I hired a consultant to teach me communication skills. She begins by telling me to read material so that I can discuss it later. I see this as direct but uninformative, because while she told me what to do I don't know in what way it pertains to why I originally hired her.

 

[entropie]

Master of Indirect convo here. Serves you good in business but sucks with woman