Indirectness Is Not Insecurity

     This excerpt from the book, "Talk from 9 to 5: How Women’s and Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work," written by Deborah Tannen, implies that an indirect or soft approach to issuing directions in the workplace may solicit a better response than a direct command. She provides an example of a directive issued by a male manager to a female employee and a second example of a detailed conversation between a female manager, whose style of delivering a directive is notably ‘softer’, and a male subordinate.  Ms. Tannen supports an indirect approach that offers employees an opportunity to make a decision to accept a command cloaked as suggestion.  

     The tone of the text suggests that male managers are more direct in communicating instructions in the workplace, and that female managers negotiate with employees to accomplish objectives.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Many women in management positions feel the have to prove themselves to their male counterparts and, therefore, take a firm posture when dealing with subordinates.  The example of a ‘soft touch’ management style is often ineffective.  Who do you know that has the luxury of debating with a boss over the content of assignments, male or female?  This kind of exchange can be perceived as insubordinate behavior.  Even if appropriate justification is offered, generally an employee is not allowed the liberty to engage in a lengthy challenge to a request made in the workplace

What about employees who have a tendency to take advantage of managers that exhibit a soft management?  Who wins when poor work ethic is discovered the workplace relationship is broken?.  The manager is now forced to move to a more rigid style of management, productivity is affected and you have an unhappy employee. 

     Ms. Tannen’s writing offers a perspective from the manager and employee standpoint.  Although she spends much more time presenting the example of indirect management, she offers a contrasting opinion in paragraph five by stating, “Some people will find Mark’s direct commands more appropriate; others would find them abrasive.  Some would find Kristen’s indirect directives congenial; others would find them irritating.”  Her position on the issue is obvious as the reader considers the positive comments made toward the conversation between the ‘soft touch’ manager and her subordinate.  Ms. Tannen is very critical of the possible perception that managers with a direct approach may have to a ‘softer’ style.  She states, “People with direct styles of asking others to do things perceive indirect requests as manipulative—if they perceive them as requests at all.  But “manipulative” is often just a way of blaming others for our discomfort with their styles.”  The examples discounting manipulative behavior are noted to convince the readers of her assumptions and personal interpretation. 

     In the end, addressing employees with respect does add great value to the workplace and keeps organizations in compliance with labor laws.  Without question, managerial suggestions with solid feedback from subordinates could offer professional growth for the employee and maybe the manager as well.  Unfortunately, it is probably the exception, not the rule.