Direct vs Indirect Communication: Why We Don’t Always Say What We Mean
Why don’t we simply state the point more often? I mean, avoid the language games and just say what we mean. Is it not weird that communicators are often okay with their main point missing the mark?
For example, when your parents say, “Your friend Sarah makes all A’s” were they really suggesting you could too? Perhaps they were simply commending Sarah. When your boss uses passive voice to say, “These slides need to be improved”, are they implying you need to improve them? Several team members hear the request as well. Maybe either the boss plans to polish the slides or has another team member in mind.
In statements like these, the speaker’s main point isn’t exactly clear, but they think you’ll solve this unnecessary riddle.
This is indirect communication: the communicator tries to make a point while using language that intentionally dances around it. In the speaker’s mind, there’s enough context to bring you across the finish line.
Direct Communication: Why Can’t We be Frank?
Direct communication just says it. What’s said is what’s meant: “You can make better grades” or “Mike, would you polish up these slides?”
While indirect communication has the luxury of dancing around the point, communication can’t always rely on an audiences’ rendition. In certain situations, direct communication works better because it spells things out, which saves time and reduces confusion.
For example, here’s a few cases where directness thrives. Think of these as “direct cultures” and “direct situations”.
Competitive Sports: With a relentless focus on performance, misunderstandings are costly. Coaches suggesting, indicating or implying which changes a team or player should make creates unnecessary guesswork and confusion. Instead, coaching and feedback tends to be clear and to the point. And with today’s Moneyball-like environment, where facts are everywhere and players’ and coaches’ performance is both constantly analyzed and put on display, direct sports cultures are hard to avoid.
Military: The military prioritizes clear and concise communication. With the fog of war being difficult to penetrate, indirect communication would only worsen everyone’s performance. For massive coordinations like a military campaign, being unclear about who does what and when spells doom.
Comedy: Comedians practice material at countless clubs in nuanced way to find the best permutation of a joke. The audience’s laughter is the direct and unambiguous communication a comedian needs: that’s funny.
With direct communication, politeness and tact isn’t the emphasis. Instead, the primary concern is the information itself. Where indirectness can allow too many costly misunderstandings to gum up a system, directness is clear as day. That’s one takeaway.
But if we see nothing wrong with effective communication, why aren’t we simply more direct? It’s simpler. The information is clear.
Well, here’s where I must confront irony and change my tune. Despite direct communication being simpler, more logical and on point, it can just as easily be misunderstood.
The Problem with Direct Communication
Direct communication can run aground for many reasons. We often learn best through metaphors, which are indirect by nature; parables rely on their audiences connecting the dots via similar cognitive processes. Human psychology adds another dimension to our interactions, where unlike Newtonian Physics, sometimes the shortest distance between two points is anything but direct. Frontal assaults aren’t always best.
A big part of the problem isn’t so much the message itself but the times when the communicator is perceived as “coming off the wrong way”, “being too on the nose”, “in bad taste”, “poor form”, “abrasive”, “terse” or “blunt”. This ruins the message.
With indirect communication, you’ll have a softer touch as it suggests, implies, or indicates. This flanking maneuver doesn’t oppressively tell, which can antagonize egos, but instead it asks the audience to play a part in understanding.
Indirect Communication: Sorry, What was that?
Indirect communication says the thing without saying it: “Your friend, Sarah, has great grades” [You can do better] or “These slides need polishing” [Mike, can you help with this?]. What’s said isn’t exactly what’s meant, requiring you to successfully marry the message with the context.
There are countless situations in life where indirectness, with its ambiguity-in-meaning and missing information, is wildly beneficial—for the speaker, audience or both.
When done poorly, indirectness is passive aggressive, withholding and misses the mark. Done well, indirect communication can be rich, delicate, imaginative and powerful.
Here are a few examples of where indirectness thrives. Think of these “indirect cultures” and “indirect situations.”
Sensitive Matters: You think emotions will be involved. You’re trying to land a point yet remain civil.
That hair is getting a little long. [I think you need a haircut]
That’s a unique outfit choice. [I don’t like it]
Let’s leave the Teddy behind [At 12, you’re too old for Teddy]
Not at this time/Now’s a bad time for me [No]
We can work it out [John, if you don’t change and take the Beatles more seriously, this won’t end well].
Power Dynamics & History: Someone is giving difficult feedback to those in power or sharing controversial messages at odds with current norms—so one must obscure the messaging. Throughout history, heretical or taboo beliefs were risky for the speaker lest they wind up crucified, inquisitioned or imprisoned by the mideval Church, etc. There are eras where you can’t just come out and say it. See Straussian reading.
Mideval Court Jester: This position was licensed to give honest feedback to the King regarding his decisions or rule, but the schtik was that the Jester needed to give feedback in a roundabout way (wrapped in humor or foolishness) to avoid directly making the King look bad.
The Heart of Darkness [We’ve tried to civilize this out of us, but it’s still part of who we are.]
Plato’s Allegory to a Cave [We should be enlightened, but we’re often like this neanderthal who prefers to stay in his cave.]
Gulliver’s Travels [This is what’s wrong with human nature, modern society and government.]
Galileo: He should have written an entertaining novel where a crazy drunkard townsfolk suggests an oddly articulate Heliocentric theory to get it past censors.
Humor & the Arts: This is the best reason we dance: for entertainment and fun.
“He’s not selling any alibis” -Bob Dylan [He’s a bad guy].
“To what degree do I have to participate in your self-image?” -Dave Chappelle [Leave me alone].
Say the thing without saying it or “Tell me you’re ____ without telling me you’re ___”. This is a pretty reliable recipe for humor.
They’re hanging up the spurs. [They’re retiring.]
I went pretty hard in the paint last night. [I drank too much.]
He’s all hat and no cattle. -> [Not a real cowboy.]
Indirectness can be rich, in part, because it offers a softer touch and is more entertaining for an audience (that finds pleasure in landing the jump from what’s said to what’s meant). Storytelling perhaps captures this idea best—where a lengthy story makes the point to the audience better than simply stating the point ever would (it also stores in the mind better).
From a historical standpoint, indirect messaging can just lie dormant—and is allowed to, protected by virtue of its ambiguity—waiting to come alive. The ambiguity-as-a-feature in stories, parables or myths can also lead to rigorous societal debate (“What’s the meaning?”) among the audience, which helps keep it alive in the culture. There’s a value in leaving the audience to wonder and reflect, which directness lacks.
Pro top: For persuasion, if you’re trying to change someone’s mind on anything important and deep-seated, it’s usually foolish to try do it on the spot. While direct communication is a tool for changing people’s mind today, if you absolutely must, indirect communication seeks to change their mind tomorrow.
Conclusion: Shall I Spell it Out?
While we wish to be understood and others would like to understand, communication is often not always that straightforward. People are complicated. Eras have taboos. Cultures are different. And humor and the arts require imagination. My take is that indirectness is richer while directness is culturally underrated.
Author’s Note
The floor is dirty -> clean the floor.
He’s a character -> He’s crazy.
That’s different -> I don’t like it.
Someone left shoes out -> Put your shoes up.
We->You
Bridgewater has opted for a direct culture, although they call it “Radical Truth and Radical Transparency”. But one really wonders if its really that radical or if they merely had to brand it that way relative to the culture we find ourselves in.
Facebook: “Feedback is a gift” is plastered on the walls. [We have to intentionally promote directness because we’re avoiding the point too often and it shows.]
Montaigne: the Roman’s would say, “He has ceased to live” instead of “he is dead”. Event they thought the term “dead” was too on the nose.
The Ancient Egyptians used to keep mummies around and signs that said “Drink and be merry, You will die soon.”
But even if you’re not a professional athlete or getting laughs, you can improve your outcomes by being more direct. You ask a lot of your audience if you regularly depend on them reading between the lines—especially if they have little incentive to. My advice with indirect cultures: You can usually get away with being direct so long as you’re respectful.