Directly diplomatic...The thin line

I am always intrigued and confused by the way these two words have been defined and understood by many. Often asked…Direct or Diplomatic…and we all are very prompt to name the legally correct answer and say “Direct”…

Fair enough…however few things popped up in my mind whenever I hear about this debate…

·         How do we define Direct and diplomat?... this is obviously the benchmark that we must decide before we move ahead.

·         Direct vs. diplomat…is this choice big and sensitive enough that we should forget the objective and outcome of the situation?

·         And on a funny note if diplomacy has got such a bad and hated sense, why the IFS officers representing our nations are called diplomat??

These questions have been troubling me lately and more after I just read one of the blog…Let’s explore and analyze the above pop-ups with a hope that we may end up with some sensible conclusion.

Define Direct and diplomat?

Out of the several meaning we assumed of these two contentious words, let us better adhered to the Oxford dictionary where Direct is defined as “Clear and Explicit “ and Diplomacy is “a skill and tact in dealing with people” and digging more ‘tact’ is defined as “Skill in dealing with difficult situations”…

So in Oxford words, Diplomacy is a skill in dealing with difficult situation with people, which of course nowhere suggest it to be an out rightly negative word and that two words are antonyms.

Direct vs. diplomat…is this choice big enough

The choice is obviously not that big that we should ignore the objective of discussion. There is a reason in every discussion and talk and you want to reach at some constructive (or destructive) conclusion at the end. So you speak and express yourself accordingly.

In personal relationship, since the level of trust, care and commitment is too high that you are never concerned about what to speak what not to…you speak what you feel is right and correct and that’s what is called Direct, clear and explicit. And I strongly believe that we should be direct-always with our loved ones and speak from the heart without concerned about the classification of your sentence.

But life is not always personal; you have to deal with some normal-friends and some not-so-normal-friends as well and of course your professional colleagues, with whom you spend up to 65% of your waking time.

And as in professional communication, a command of language definitely adds variety and modulation to the communication, but the overall communication is still calculated by how effectively you put across your right ideas and exact sense. And to achieve this, you need a blend of every communication tools. And when you speak, you have to be wise enough to decide what will help you in your communication; a direct/curt/rude/honest sentence or a diplomatic/indirect sentence. And the perfect professional is one who understands the right blend of these two tools.

In a broader sense, I feel these two are very important aspect of our communication channel. Let me call it a tool rather which everyone should be proficiently able to integrate into his/her communication at will to achieve the objective he is aiming for. Life is so pragmatically designed that we can’t dare ourself to be strictly adhere to just one school of thought. Or in simple words, we can’t be direct-always or diplomat-always

  

diplomacy has got such a bad and hated sense??

Of course not. If you have agreed with my thoughts so far, you can easily answer this question.

  

Constructive criticism is welcome.

(2008)