Directness

If you have something to say, and want to be clearly understood in the shortest period of time, you should be direct. Being direct means making a single unambiguous statement as concisely as possible. Unfortunately, the problem with being direct is that in many instances, it can come across as rude and even aggressive, and can often invite conflict.

For example, if a colleague presented a proposal for a new business strategy, but in your honest professional opinion you believed the strategy would not work, you could say directly, "Your strategy won't work." While this statement is very direct, it is dismissive of your colleague's proposal, offers a harsh criticism with no justification, and offers no productive path forward.

Alternatively, we could be diplomatic, and instead say, "I think this proposal might be something we could consider at the appropriate time and maybe adopt at some point in the future if the circumstances warrant a change in strategy."

In this rephrasing we chose to be indirect and somewhat passive so as to not offer a harsh criticism, but this came at the expense of no longer being honest with our professional opinion. Passive communication can be thought of as using diplomacy to avoid directly addressing a particular topic - in this case, the fact that you believe the strategy won't work.

Though this indirect, passive phrasing is unlikely to lead to conflict, it is still dismissive of your colleague's work, as: it only offers a vague suggestion of maybe revisiting the proposal at some arbitrary point in the future; it doesn't offer a justification for why the proposal cannot be considered now; and it still offers no productive path forward.

Our goal should be to share our honest professional opinion in a way that is both direct and diplomatic, which is called assertive communication, and can be thought of as the opposite of passive communication. Consider the following assertive rephrasing:

"This strategy appears to cost more but seems like it will generate less revenue. Is that correct?"

This statement is assertive as it is honest, direct, and diplomatic. You are being honest about your belief that it will cost more but generate less revenue - which in this case is your justification for believing that the strategy won't work - but it is diplomatic by conveying that you are open to being wrong through the use of, "appears to cost more" instead of "will cost more," and "seems like it will generate less revenue," instead of "will generate less revenue," as well as asking the direct question of whether you are correct in your understanding - which offers a productive path forward: if you are not correct, your colleague can offer clarifying information; if you are correct, your colleague has the chance to adjust their proposal to address the issue.

There was another change that was very important: the statement started with, "This strategy," and not, "Your strategy." When referring to someone else's work, ideas, or opinions, it is often better to avoid using personalizing language such as "you," or "your," which people tend to interpret as a personal attack. Instead, it is often better to substitute "you" and "your" with "This," or "The," or use terms that encompass the entire team, such as, "we," "us," and, "our."

If we compare, "This strategy appears to cost more," with, "Your strategy appears to cost more," the first is impersonal, and comes across as more objective; whereas the second is personal, and comes across as accusatory.

When learning to be direct, it can be helpful to think of statements as falling into one of four categories: Passive, Aggressive, Passive-Aggressive, and Assertive.

Passive communication is dishonest and indirect, but it is still diplomatic. While being passive tends to avoid conflict, it tends to accomplish little else, and usually only serves as filler when someone is asked to answer something they don't want to answer, such as responding to, "When will this project be completed," with, "Everyone is working hard to achieve the best business outcomes as quickly as possible." While this may avoid conflict, it also avoids answering the question.

Aggressive communication is honest and direct but with no diplomacy, and typically causes or invites conflicts regardless of someone's intention. For this reason, aggressive communication should not be used in professional communication, as it tends to lead to worse outcomes than being assertive. For example, saying, "You're going to cause me to miss my deadline because you're too distracted," will tend to lead to worse outcomes than saying, "We will all need to focus in order to meet our deadline."

Passive-aggression can be thought of as being dishonest - as someone is not sharing what they actually feel; as well as a failed attempt at both indirectness - as the true meaning can often still be interpreted; as well as a failure of diplomacy - as passive-aggression still invites conflict. If we were to answer the question of "When will this project be completed," passive-aggressively, we might say, "I don't know if this project will ever be complete because some people would rather play on their phone than get their work done." To put it mildly, passive-aggressive communication has absolutely no place in professional communication, and should never be used under any circumstances, as it is rude, snide, and sarcastic.

Assertive communication, on the other hand, is honest, direct, and diplomatic, and is the gold standard for professional communication. For example, it is far more professional to say assertively, "To create the most accurate estimates we will need a more precise list of feature requirements," instead of, "I like how this list is formatted," or, "Whoever came up with this list should be fired," or "I guess whoever came up with this list thinks everyone is willing to work nights and weekends."

As a general rule in professional communication, you should never be passive, aggressive, or passive-aggressive, and instead always strive to communicate assertively by being honest while balancing directness with diplomacy.