THE IMPACT OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT COMMUNICATION
By Cynthia Joyce, The University of Iowa
Published in the November, 2012, edition of the Independent Voice, the newsletter of the International Ombudsman
Association.
Some of the conflicts we see as ombuds are rooted in different communication styles. At The University of Iowa, we
have found that differentiating between direct and indirect communication has been especially useful to our visitors.
In our organization, we draw faculty, staff and students from across the country and around the world to a small city in
the Midwestern region of the United States. No one informs people that they are coming to a place dominated by
indirect communication. Indirect communicators from elsewhere, nationally or internationally, are adept at picking up
nuances in communication, even if the underlying culture isn’t familiar to them. But direct communicators may not
understand the expectations for communication, and they may not realize that their style can be seen as abrasive
and sometimes even threatening. Providing visitors with this frame for seeing their situations can be very helpful.
Indirectness
The well-known linguist Deborah Tannen states that “indirectness is a fundamental element in human
communication” (p. 79). We all use indirect communication strategies at times and in certain circumstances – we
mean more than we say, and we gather meaning from others beyond the words they use (Tannen, p. 89). Tannen
points out that indirectness is “…one of the elements that varies the most from one culture to another, and one that
can cause confusion and misunderstanding…” (p. 79). In many parts of the world, indirect communication is the
norm, although the degree and type of indirectness vary with cultures and geographic regions. One of the best
resources we have found on the topic is a workbook to help Peace Corps volunteers think about their own
communication strategies and those typical for the country where they are placed (see Peace Corps, below).
Understanding the differences between direct and indirectcommunication is also important for people within the
United States. Although many people assume that all Americans are naturally direct communicators, there is
considerable variation in styles associated with regional as well as cultural and family of origin differences. For
example, and stereotypically, people from the East and West coasts tend to be direct, and those from the Midwest
and South tend to be indirect (although in different ways).
Typical differences between direct and indirect communication
Direct communicators tend to say what they think. Their message is conveyed primarily by the words they use, and
they depend on the literal interpretation of these words. The overall goal of communication is “getting or giving
information” (Peace Corps, p. 78). Direct communication is common in low-context cultures, which are usually more
culturally heterogeneous and tend to emphasize individualism, independence, and self-reliance. Because of this
heterogeneity, there aren’t widely held assumptions about the context within which communication takes place. In
direct communication, the speaker is responsible for clear communication.
In indirect communication, common in high-context cultures, the meaning is conveyed not just by the words used but
by nonverbal behaviors (“pauses, silence, tone of voice” [Ting-Toomey, p. 100]), implication, understatement, and a
widely shared understanding of the context of the communication. “The overriding goal of the communication
exchange is maintaining harmony and saving face” (Peace Corps, p. 78). Indirect communicators seek to avoid
conflict, tension and uncomfortable situations. In a high-context culture, which may be relatively homogeneous and
tends to emphasize interdependence and social relationships, people develop deep and often unconscious
understandings of what is expected in that culture. Because of shared expectations about behavior, the context can
be altered by the speaker to convey information.
Such issues as the identity of the speaker, elements of communication that are left out, and behaviors out of the
norm, all convey information. In indirect communication, the listener has to understand the culture to understand the
meaning of the communication. The listener is responsible for interpreting the message; the listener’s “sensitivity and
ability to capture the under-the-surface meaning and to discern implicit meaning becomes critical” (Yum, p. 385).
Common sayings and other phrases gleaned from the sources cited below can help illuminate stereotypes about the
two communication styles.