Mastering Direct and Indirect Communication

I have listened to a lot of leadership advice over the years, and one of the things that keeps coming up is the idea that, be direct, be clear, say what you mean is good leadership. But what if directness and clarity are not actually the same thing? What if being indirect can be just as clear, and what if being direct can actually lead people to confusion? That's what we're digging into this episode.

Hey everyone, I'm Shane Leaning, welcome to Education Leaders The Chat, topping leadership podcast for school leaders just like you. As an organizational coach, I've helped thousands of leaders worldwide lead with greater confidence, make better decisions, and create winning teams. And on this show, we explore the strategies that are going to help you achieve your goals and transform your leadership practice. This episode is supported by teaching walkthroughs and the International Curriculum Association. Stay tuned to learn more.

So I know as many of you know, I based in Shanghai, in China, and when you're living here, I'm constantly hearing from school leaders. One thing that you hear a lot in China is that people get frustrated that you can't get a straight answer. Everything's indirect. I don't know where I stand when I'm working with my Chinese colleagues. And this is understandable

if you're from the UK, US, Australia. There is a lot of work around directness and indirectness, and it's one of those kind of tensions that's seen as a bit of an East West tension, if you like. That's a bit of a broad stereotype, but general kind of feeling. The thing is when I actually start to unpack this, I find that the frustration that they talk about isn't actually about directness. It's about clarity. Directness and clarity are not

the same thing. I have seen leaders who are super direct leave everyone confused. And I have seen indirect leaders where everyone knows exactly what's expected of them. The variable that matters is not how direct you are, but do people understand what you mean?

In this episode, I'm going to share with you a quadrant framework that I've put together that might change how you communicate. And it works whether you're in Shanghai, China, or Sheffield back in the UK. So let's start with an assumption we need to challenge. So I want to take you back to the 1970s. There's an anthropologist called Edward Hall. He did

some great work on communicating across cultures. He's actually been really seminal in the field. The seminal idea that is mostly associated with is the idea that there are high context cultures like China, Japan, maybe some places in the Middle East, communicate in more indirect ways. That meaning is drawn from contexts, from relationships, from things that are unsaid.

And there's low context cultures, maybe countries like UK, Germany, the Netherlands, for example. They thrive on explicit direct communication. You say what you mean. But I do want to challenge something that I've used his work in a lot of what I've done. But today I want to challenge

a little bit this assumption that direct equals clear and indirect equals unclear. Now I was chatting online a couple of weeks ago, I've got it in front of me with Eunice Okpoto. And we were talking a little bit about psychological safety and about arguing. And we actually end up getting onto this conversation about clarity. Eunice was saying,

now this is a challenge because surely we need directness. And then I was speaking to Eunice about how directness could be a threat. But then we kind of landed on something together was the idea, can you be indirect, but also be clear? Because that's one of the biggest things that people talk about is their frustration. When you're not direct,

you don't get clarity. And we landed on this idea of indirect clarity, which is inspired this episode. So huge thanks Eunice to that. Key insight. The problem is that

I think whole's framework doesn't make a case for where indirect communication can be really clear. Indirect doesn't always mean unclear. Now I've observed quite a few things. I've seen many UK heads of schools, for example, who are incredibly direct in terms of their approach. And yet staff are still confused at what's expected of them. And

I've also seen many leaders over here, for example, in China who are never direct, never directly confront anyone. And yet in their school, it is very clear what the standards are and what needs to be done. So my key insight, I guess, in this episode is that directness and clarity are two separate things. You can be direct and unclear. You can be indirect and perfectly clear. And that's what the quadrant is.

So let me talk about the quadrant. We all have a quadrant, right? So we've got horizontal axis from direct to indirect. Direct meaning you will address the specific person about a specific issue. You'll talk to them directly and tell

them very directly. Indirect is other channels. You're speaking more broadly. You're not going direct to that person. And then on the vertical axis, you're

going to go from clear to unclear. Clear at the top. So expectations, standards, actions, unambiguous, what people should be doing. And unclear at the bottom. People have to guess what you want, right? So let's kind of work

through these quadrants. Let's start at quadrant one, direct and clear right at the top there. This is what most leadership advice tells you to live. If you were to look in most books, for example, you're asking for a report.

James, I need this report by 3pm on Friday. I want you to include budget protections, staffing implications. I need you to let me know tomorrow if anything prevents that. That is really clear. And it's really direct. It's

crystal clear, isn't it? Who, what, when? It works. There's nothing wrong with it.

The problem is, is that many people assume this is the only way to be clear. And actually, in some cultures, it actually might be a bit of a challenge. It might not work in the way you want it. But it is a good approach.

I'm definitely an advocate for direct and clear. Leaders tell me all the time that they struggle to find a practical way to get evidence informed practice into every classroom. And that's where teaching walkthroughs come in. They transform the most effective teaching techniques into five-step visual guides that are actually easy to follow. And what happens when your team use them?

Well, enthusiasm spreads, teachers improve their craft, and they genuinely love using them. And I do too. That's why I'm proud to be a consultant for teaching walkthroughs. You can find out more at walkthroughs.co.uk or using the links in the show notes.

This episode is supported by the International Curriculum Association. The ICA have been around for 30 years now, championing quality, unlocking potential, and improving learning in international schools. And what I really love is that right at their core is the model for improving learning. This is a model focused on the learning experience, and they have got tons of great curriculum materials, PD resources, and even an accreditation pathway for schools just like yours.

If you're interested, head to internationalcurriculum.com. Let's look at the other quadrants and explore them a little bit. Quadrant two, let's go down to the bottom left. Direct, but unclear. This is surprisingly common.

Examples, have you ever heard things like this? I need you to step up right now. You need to do better. I need more from you. Can you show some leadership here?

These are being direct, speaking to someone directly, but they're meaningless. It feels like you've communicated something, but actually you haven't. Performance management example might be saying your classroom management needs some work. The teacher has no idea. You've been direct, classroom management needs some work.

You've been direct, but you've been totally unclear. They have no idea what to change. This is so common and so dangerous. Let's move along to quadrant three. So bottom right, indirect and unclear.

This zone, I would say it's called the frustration zone, right? It's where complaints about indirect cultures actually come from, like when I've heard them. So example, we might want things to be better. So we might say, oh, it would be nice if things ran more smoothly, or some people seem to be struggling with the basics, or I'm sure everyone knows what the priorities are here. They're hints, they're vague illusions. Nothing's actually named.

So people can sense something's wrong and something needs to be done, but they can't pin it down. Leaders feel like they've communicated nothing's changed. So indirect can be extremely unclear. The key thing here is that when people complain about indirect communication, they're usually complaining about this quadrant. It's indirect and it's unclear.

There are two separate things combined into one. Quadrant four at the top right. This is an overlooked quadrant. This is an interesting space and opens up a whole new toolkit for leaders, I would say.

This is being indirect but clear. So let's say a staff member has been late in your school, turned up late. If you were being direct and clear, you'd say, you've been late three times, I need to hear by 8am, can I rely on you? You speak to them one-to-one and you say that.

But an indirect but clear version might be actually, instead of speaking one-to-one to that person, talking in the staff meeting and saying, I'd like to remind people about arrival times. Everyone needs to be in the building by 8am ready to receive students and I'll be noting those arrival times this week. Here, what we've done is we haven't named anyone specifically. We've been indirect but the expectation is crystal clear atm ready, being checked. The late person knows,

everyone knows, no ambiguity. I'm not saying, by the way, using this all the time, but there is another tool that leaders can use that can show that indirect can work. So why would you choose indirect over direct? Direct is often what's seen as the best leadership.

Why would you? Well, there's a few reasons. I think four that come to mind for me. The first is about face. You might have heard about this idea of saving face,

really common in some Asian countries. So if you think of blunt criticism, we have to be careful because blunt criticism can damage relationships, especially if it's public. And sometimes you might win the battle in terms of this thing. And lose something long term. I've seen countless examples of where a staff member has complied

with the rule and then just being totally switched off later on because there's been a face issue. Indirect clarity can set a standard without making someone defensive. So that's one way for face. Two is for norms. Maybe it's a good chance to reinforce a standard for everyone,

not just for one person. And it's more efficient than just 10 individual conversations. Third is the culture thing. So international context, especially Asia, Middle East, direct confrontation can be counterproductive and the social cost is that much higher for getting this wrong. Here by being indirect, but clear, you get the same outcome and respect

cultural norms. And number four is just very simply, I guess when direct is not available, maybe the person is more senior, maybe there's political reasons. This indirect clarity gives you options. The thing is here and the key is you are still being clear. The expectations are

unambiguous. There's clarity. The standard is explicit. You just have a different channel.

So here's a little toolkit for you. So what's the mindset you should take? Well, the mindset is that direct clarity and indirect clarity are both tools. Neither are better.

There are skill and knowing when to use which is really important. So when should you go direct? Well, here's a few examples, performance issues, not improving. That's good probably for a direct, clear conversation, safety concerns, maybe legal requirements, when ambiguity would be really dangerous or maybe even unfair. That would be a really good pro for direct. But when might you

go indirect? Well, maybe you're reinforcing cultural norms. Maybe you're working across hierarchies where directness is not going to work. Maybe you're preserving relationships while setting those standards on. Maybe there's some sensitive issues where face matters.

The key thing is what's never appropriate is being unclear at the bottom. When you're direct, whether you're indirect, if people are confused about expectations, you haven't communicated, you have just made an eyes. The leaders who I admire a lot are quite fluent in both modes. They can be amazingly direct when needed, but they can really be wonderfully indirect when that's appropriate. In both cases, nobody's confused about expectations. We've just communicated.

We are aiming for more clarity, not more directness. So next time someone says to you, be more direct, maybe take a pause and ask, is the problem directness or is the problem clarity? Remember, you can be direct and leave people confused. You can be indirect and be crystal clear. Your job as a leader is to stay in the top half of that grid. Direct and clear,

indirect and clear, always clear. My advice to you is to master both routes. Stay clear. That's the skill. Education Leaders is hosted by me, Shane Leaning, thanks to the show editor,

Pima Gill, production assistant, Skylar Rose-Sturman, and for the original music by Guillerme Silver. And thank you so, so much for tuning in today. If we don't speak before, I'll see you here next week. If you're interested in learning more about teaching walkthroughs or the International Curriculum Association, check out the links in the show notes.