But this situation happens so frequently in a work environment, at least for me it does. It's not some huge thought process I need to go through and I do think it's obvious.
Is it so difficult to understand that some people do that more easily than others? And that sometimes the work environment issues are reversed, with (for lack of a better expression) "Te-style" dominance of the culture, with "Fe-style" people trying to get by?
I fully understand your misgivings w/r to applying MBTI and Jungian functions to everything. If one understands a situation on its own terms, that understanding will be more complete, and "functions" just get in the way. However, if one is unfamiliar with the situation, those simplistic functions can help one quickly classify and process issues, rather than just sitting in confusion because one doesn't grok the whole process.
What happens when you have a direct Fe communicator or does no such animal exist? Once again, the way you and Orobas are describing it, Fe=indirect, Te=direct. Is that a claim you all want to make because it seems like a gross oversimplification to me.
Yeah, that's a simplistic picture, with the Te=direct and Fe=indirect. I fully agree. With respect to the Tannen book, due to how she describes the situations, what she describes as "direct" is the Te behavior, while the "indirect" has a more Fe feel to it. (I go into more detail at the end of this post, but as I don't have the book with me, I don't have quotes available to make this as clear is I might, otherwise.)
I don't expect Orobas to hold the same value set as I do, but only being able to communicate with people who are "like" me is a severe handicap. What is insulting about this whole thing is exactly what Jag outlines above: instead of Orobas owning it as her problem, she extrapolates it to functions. Instead of taking accountability for her communication difficulties, it's suddenly a type issue.
Well, I think that's where the miscommunication is coming in: she is taking accountability. Her manner of doing so appears to be foreign to you, to the point of looking like "rationalization" and "blaming Jungian functions". She steps back and analyzes patterns. More often than not, the analysis results in self-correction, not blame.
If you want to map this to function, (which I think is bologney but I'll play along) and using Orobas as an example, her Fi still sits in front of Te and I would say that Fi is way more indirect that Fe. I won't fuss about Te being more direct than Fe, but Ti seems pretty direct to me as well. Then you've got Se and Si and I'd like to see the argument made that Se is an indirect function...I'd jump on Si being indirect. Would extroverted functions be more direct since they're more visible? As I've already brought up earlier, all EJs fall into the In Charge group and then ESTP. Would In Charge (two of which are Fe users) be the most direct? ENFPs are in the Get Things Going category which engages through enthusiasm and excitment, but so are ESFJs and ENTPs. I would think that if these types are all grouped together they must have equally effective, but different means of leading and engaging people.
These are good points. Fi is way more indirect about emotions and handling emotions than Fe. You essentially have to step on Fi toes really hard to get a straight reaction out of them. This is where a better definition of "direct" and "indirect" come into play, because they are being used in a particular way by a particular author.
Specifically, a "direct" approach would be to say, "I want some ice tea, please." Someone sharing that communication style would presumably ask if they want lemon or sugar and go get some, or reply that, sorry, there is no ice tea to be had (or even "Go get your own damn tea.")
An indirect approach would be to talk about how hot it is, eventually mention that a cool drink would be refreshing, and only when exasperated or dying of thirst ask for water or tea or something.
I don't have the book with me at the moment, but when outlining the direct style, it was described as being "information only" with no emotional content, saying no more or less than needed, while the indirect style worked at preserving relationships, respecting boundaries, and in general tried to make assumptions about how the other might react to various statements. As you can see, with these kinds of definitions, it's easy to make the simplistic (I'd say 0th or 1st order) observation that Te = direct and Fe = indirect. Yes it gets more and more complicated as you get into the details, but it's a good starting point for understanding.