Direct and Indirect Communication

[Spamtar]

#1 direct results indirect communication (regardless more practical in management avoid conflict maximize work)

#2 direct communication/indirect results. (message is less clear and seems insulting passive aggressiveness)

#3 indirect communication/direct results. Regardless if rhetorically a question their will be a change of gloves

#4 direct communication/direct results. Specific instructions to cause a direct result.

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.

Reading this I notice the Te and Ti difference when it comes to harmony. I can respect how they feel about BS in general but social harmony is not BS. Looking at it not for what it is rather the illusion we want it to represent. In my eyes, protocol has the power to change may sticky situations to run smooth, and thus greater efficiency. Reasons I value harmony is:
1. It feels good
and
2. avoids resentment and aggressions in others (both standard aggression and passive aggression) i.e. don’t piss off the busboys or they will spit in your food.

Of the four choices I like #1 and #3 because both those scene's results are obtained.

choice #2 seems a rude power play which would (at least if I was one of the subordinates) foster resentment.

choice #4 seems too overbearing. Makes me claustrophobic just thinking about out...get out of my room creepy professor.

I wonder if other types feel a similar response to the scenarios

 

[raindancing]

Reading this I notice the Te and Ti difference when it comes to harmony. I can respect how they feel about BS in general but social harmony is not BS. Looking at it not for what it is rather the illusion we want it to represent. In my eyes, protocol has the power to change may sticky situations to run smooth, and thus greater efficiency. Reasons I value harmony is:
1. It feels good
and
2. avoids resentment and aggressions in others (both standard aggression and passive aggression) i.e. don’t piss off the busboys or they will spit in your food.

Your explanation of how you view social harmony seems very similar to my INTP husband.

Of the four choices I like #1 and #3 because both those scene's results are obtained.

choice #2 seems a rude power play which would (at least if I was one of the subordinates) foster resentment.

choice #4 seems too overbearing. Makes me claustrophobic just thinking about out...get out of my room creepy professor.

I wonder if other types feel a similar response to the scenarios

Personally, all the choices are too direct for my taste, I prefer subtleness in communication (possibly because I am so sensitive to it?), directness can feel almost physically jarring to me and often makes me feel like someone thinks I'm an idiot.
However, I am always careful to customize my communication on an individual basis, so sometimes I have to be more direct than I would prefer. Learning how to be like this with certain people was rather difficult, but I'm getting better at it.

Of the choices, my favourite is #1. It gets results without being overly direct.
I agree with spamtar about #2, it felt rude and condescending, a power play, and it would certainly piss me off.
#3 was alright I guess, the wording seemed laced with "you idiot", though. I would prefer something along the lines of "Would you mind changing your gloves?"
#4 again have to agree with spamtar. This one would really irritate me. I don't like overbearing people.

 

[Jae Rae]

When I was in my first job as manager, the owner of the bookstore where I worked issued a prohibition against wearing cloth shoes (i.e., sneakers). We were all amazed - most of the clerks made very little money and it wasn't a fancy kind of place. Finally the shipper asked what was up. It turns out the owner thought the manager of the rare book room (me) should be better dressed - but he never told me that directly. So he annoyed most of the staff and embarrassed himself; in the end, he retracted the prohibition for everyone.

Such indirect communication isn't subtle, it's awkward and ineffective.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

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.

I would consider this direct, but it depends on how much of the actual intent the manager communicated. There is a difference between not wanting the employees to chat as a rule and wanting the employees to get specific tasks done at that time. If I were the manager, this would be direct because I wouldn't have a problem with employees chatting. I might consider it my responsibility to manage the workers to be sure all the tasks get done and so I would assign them the tasks as they needed to be done. If I wanted them to self-regulate more, then I would find a way to implement that. If the manager was trying to communicate that they shouldn't ever have chat sessions, but didn't come out and say it, then there would be an element of indirectness. I would tend to interpret it as direct and meaning exactly what was said unless there was additional information.

 

[Usehername]

Reading this I notice the Te and Ti difference when it comes to harmony. I can respect how they feel about BS in general but social harmony is not BS. Looking at it not for what it is rather the illusion we want it to represent. In my eyes, protocol has the power to change may sticky situations to run smooth, and thus greater efficiency. Reasons I value harmony is:
1. It feels good
and
2. avoids resentment and aggressions in others (both standard aggression and passive aggression) i.e. don’t piss off the busboys or they will spit in your food.

I agree for many situations, but not all. For instance: if it's just some random tech supposed to draw blood, I really don't care about a harmonious relationship with her (which doesn't mean I would be disrespectful, it just means for our 5 minutes of interacting, my priorities are ensuing she's doing her job properly in ways that affect me).
Similarly, with a co-worker with whom I've established a long term amicable relationship, with whom I know I've been expressly clear with my good intentions, integrity, etc. and they know that I have their back... If they were to, not just once or twice, but over time establish a clear pattern of a negative issue that is best to be addressed, I don't care about addressing it in a harmonious manner--I care about treating them with respect, but my priority is addressing the issue and resolving it.

For situations in between (i.e. my interaction is not just a few minutes, or for co-workers with whom I haven't established an amicable relationship where we both trust and have faith in the other's integrity) I value harmony (unless they're being bigoted or otherwise a jackass).

 

[cascadeco]

#1 direct results indirect communication (regardless more practical in management avoid conflict maximize work)

#2 direct communication/indirect results. (message is less clear and seems insulting passive aggressiveness)

#3 indirect communication/direct results. Regardless if rhetorically a question their will be a change of gloves

#4 direct communication/direct results. Specific instructions to cause a direct result.

I think this is a good way to break it down - i.e. Communication directness/indirectness vs. Results directness/indirectness. However, we'll always have the problem where people are going to assign direct/indirect differently to Communication, and we won't always know the motive behind the communicator's words. (for example, I think number 2 was indirect communication, although certainly she was quite blunt and we know what she was implying)

----------------------

Also agree with Orangey's post that everyone has different ideas of what comprises direct vs. indirect, and obviously each person is going to have their own preference, both in terms of how they choose to communicate to others, and how they want others to communicate to them...which, in the end, is what the OP was kinda about anyway.

---------------------

In a job setting, I think direct results are what's most important, ultimately, but obviously the clearer you are in conveying what results you want, the better....otherwise people will start guessing, and what one person understands via indirect communication, another person doesn't catch. A lot of people don't read between the lines, or else choose to ignore if the directive is indirect. So I always prefer direct communication - I tend to be direct when I'm on the job (although probably in a pretty diplomatic way, as those things go, and I adjust my communication style depending on who I'm interacting with), as clarity is important to me and I want to make sure everyone's on the same page.

Regarding #1 - we don't know whether the manager actually cares enough to reprimand the people for chatting - might have been fine w/ him, but since there is stuff he wants done, he let that be known. And we don't know...he might have a larger 'method' in mind and doesn't want to stir the pot more than necessary...i.e. if he can run his shop and get all the work done without playing babysitter and reprimanding and creating disgruntled employees, it could be argued it's a more effective method.

#2 is the kind of statement that illicits inward eye-rolling from me...and I might be tempted to ignore it *because* I know what the manager is implying, and until/unless she's actually direct about any problem/issues she has, it'll just get eye-rolling.

#3 - seems fine to me.

#4 - seems perfectly straightforward to me. Direct. As for myself, I wouldn't receive this poorly at all. I mean, it's a job. That person's doing their job, and now I know my role in the process.

 

[Spamtar]

... I prefer subtleness in communication (possibly because I am so sensitive to it?), directness can feel almost physically jarring to me and often makes me feel like someone thinks I'm an idiot.
However, I am always careful to customize my communication on an individual basis, so sometimes I have to be more direct than I would prefer. Learning how to be like this with certain people was rather difficult, but I'm getting better at it.....

I too often prefer subtleness in communication directed at me as long as the message is clear and not vague and ambiguous (unless as an exception when I choose it to be not clear for whatever reasons). Communication with me feels like a art form or science and directness and indirectness and the subtle shades in between are a palate. As raindancing infers learning who the person (i.e. personality type) you are communicating facilitates the intake and outtake of communication.

 

[Spamtar]

I think this is a good way to break it down - i.e. Communication directness/indirectness vs. Results directness/indirectness. However, we'll always have the problem where people are going to assign direct/indirect differently to Communication, and we won't always know the motive behind the communicator's words.

nor they ours. Yes this is the rub. Often clearification is needed, more on this infra.

I agree for many situations....I don't care about addressing it in a harmonious manner--I care about treating them with respect, but my priority is addressing the issue and resolving it....For situations in between .....I value harmony (unless they're being bigoted or otherwise a jackass).

Very good points and raises the issue that there is a hierarchy/triage/priority system when it comes to harmony. Also one aspects I think INTJs are not given credit for is their precise maintenance of their own inner harmony and the integrity they offer in their relationships with themselves/within themselves.
One might consider a system or protocal in balancng harmony/self integrity.
For example when I was working as a supervisor and addressing a subordinate I would keep my orders short and succinct and got good results because I remained consistent and relevantly fair.
My equals and especially my friends I would use a mix of indirect and direct I would build up rapport and make an effort to understand there personality type and volunteer aspects of myself (i.e. often via humor) for them to understand ‘where I was coming from. Often there would be an understanding that we would "try" and work halfway with each other and our differences and sometimes we would have bad days and each other would shrug it off knowing that reciprocal tolerance would be in play.

As to bosses or ‘masters of my fate’ I would prefer to use subtleness and indirect communication in general to make them thing that the good ideas that I came up with were theirs. Outshining the boss/master I have found in general, not too effective. On the other hand I choose to draw a line in the sand in the beginning with the boss/master as to what behavior I will not tolerate. (and in general directly or indirectly to the subordinates and equals as well (i.e. choose a jackass as an example of what happens to a person when the line is crossed)

 

[proteanmix]

I too often prefer subtleness in communication directed at me as long as the message is clear and not vague and ambiguous (unless as an exception when I choose it to be not clear for whatever reasons). Communication with me feels like a art form or science and directness and indirectness and the subtle shades in between are a palate. As raindancing infers learning who the person (i.e. personality type) you are communicating facilitates the intake and outtake of communication.

Can you give me some examples of what you would consider subtle, yet direct communication?

Also check this thread out. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nt-rationale/22638-why-entj-hate.html

 

[Spamtar]

Can you give me some examples of what you would consider subtle, yet direct communication?

Also check this thread out. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nt-rationale/22638-why-entj-hate.html

No! because it would make me look like an oxy-moron in front of everyone. har har har:steam:

 

[raindancing]

Just thinking about this a bit more in relation to my own communication style...

Pretty much all of my communication is between equals (I am self employed and only work with my husband so don't have the superior/subordinate thing).
In most cases I don't like to force people to do things, I think this is one of the reasons I value a more subtle style of communication. I prefer to let someone know what I would like, but phrase it in a way so they can choose not to do this without feeling like they're being rude. I would much prefer someone not do something than do it just because they felt that they had to.

Autonomy and choice are very important to me. And just as I don't want to be trampled on, I also wouldn't want to impinge on someone else's autonomy

I too often prefer subtleness in communication directed at me as long as the message is clear and not vague and ambiguous (unless as an exception when I choose it to be not clear for whatever reasons). Communication with me feels like a art form or science and directness and indirectness and the subtle shades in between are a palate. As raindancing infers learning who the person (i.e. personality type) you are communicating facilitates the intake and outtake of communication.

I agree, communication feels like an art form to me as well. It's like an intricate dance, with subtle shades, as you say.

For me, it's the personalized nature of communication that makes it interesting and compelling. You have to adjust your dance for each person and each situation in the moment; accurately communicate while maintaining the perfect balance.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I like to get things done. I don't have time for feelings at work/school.

Luckily, once I become a lawyer I'll get to be fairly autonomous.

 

[Spamtar]

For me, it's the personalized nature of communication that makes it interesting and compelling. You have to adjust your dance for each person and each situation in the moment; accurately communicate while maintaining the perfect balance.

+1 This is a lovely way of putting it. Prefer your metaphor raindancing of dance it is more precise as to how I like to look on the beauty and effectiveness of well crafting subtle effective indirect communication.

 

[proteanmix]

+1 This is a lovely way of putting it. Prefer your metaphor raindancing of dance it is more precise as to how I like to look on the beauty and effectiveness of well crafting subtle effective indirect communication.

All these lovely metaphors of indirect communication being like a ballet or two swans mating glosses over the fact that most indirect communication sounds like non-communication to those that prefer a more direct communication style. Personally, I try (try!) to use a more agile communication style but naturally prefer direct.

Still waiting for my examples. I think one of the reasons why it's hard to find examples is because the message of subtle, clear, indirect communication is often obscure, so yeah it is an oxymoron. With my first example, there was a clear objective>task>result but I also used that one because it was fairly simple. It tends to be highly situational and context dependent and as raindancing mentioned tends to work best within a small dynamic or with people who are more familiar with each other than average. I think that when you're trying to persuade or convince someone of something that you need them to cooperate with subtle, results-oriented indirect communication comes naturally out of most people. I do believe there is a less conscious shift that occurs but when people operate in that realm most of the time I can see how frustration can arise when someone thinks they're being clear as flashing neon signs but the other person is befuddled.

 

[Xander]

Errm I've always thought of direct people as intimating their opinion without fluff... for example my ENFJ friend, if he thinks you're being a complete #### he will tell you so. Being an F he's polite about it "I'm sorry to say but you're being a complete ####" (he does that literally, the polite comment is sarcasm).

Indirect people tend to obfuscate, conceal and evade... they're frickin irritating for prolonged periods. If they haven't got the strength of conviction to state something so others can see it and either accept or refute it then exactly why should it be considered?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Errm I've always thought of direct people as intimating their opinion without fluff... for example my ENFJ friend, if he thinks you're being a complete #### he will tell you so. Being an F he's polite about it "I'm sorry to say but you're being a complete ####" (he does that literally, the polite comment is sarcasm).

Indirect people tend to obfuscate, conceal and evade... they're frickin irritating for prolonged periods. If they haven't got the strength of conviction to state something so others can see it and either accept or refute it then exactly why should it be considered?

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[Salt n' pepper]

Hit the nail on the head.

Ouch!

 

[proteanmix]

Hit the nail on the head.

To be fair, I don't think barking at people is the best method either.

 

[Xander]

Hit the nail on the head.

Sir!

Which nail should I hit sir?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

To be fair, I don't think barking at people is the best method either.

agreed