Being Blunt: What Are the Boundaries?

I was inspired to write this post by two people I've known at different times in my life who were often described as being blunt, but otherwise well-meaning friends. The truth is, neither one of these people was actually blunt, but rather just bitter, and as a result ended up being inconsiderately destructive in their wisdom sharing.

So I've taken it upon myself to put the case to rest as bluntly as possible: what does being blunt actually mean, and at what point does one stop being blunt and turns orange with (often unintentional) rudeness instead?

The general consensus is that a blunt person will tell you exactly what they're thinking to your face, sometimes in fewer words, often with the intent of trying to help you come into your own. I agree with this notion. But what gradiates it is the word choices and rationales used to get the message across.

This is especially true when it comes to leadership and delivering constructive feedback. The most common trap self-proclaimed blunt people fall into—particularly those in some position of power—is when they simply describe something they feel isn't adequate enough—using frankly derogatory language they think is acceptably humorous—without properly explaining its inadequacy on the basis of any sort of logic or deeper understanding of the subject nor offering any viable suggestions to improve the given scenario.

If your intention is to "toughen up" your friend, employee, or otherwise, it's having the opposite effect. You'll make people feel like they're incapable of intelligence, when they really aren't more often than not, and you'll cause them to be on the defensive as opposed to welcoming a meaningful dialogue with you. Nobody's going to get anywhere, and you'll instead find yourselves leaving through doors at opposite sides of the room.

What makes unnecessarily harsh words even worse is that they usually exaggerate or distort the extent of the issue; thus, they're not accurately identifying the problem with whatever it is that needs solving in the first place. It's not enough to just say, "This is stupid because it doesn't make sense to me," as a statement like this is vague and subjective anyway, lowbrow language aside.

It almost seems like people are subconsciously trying to make themselves look better by doing that. As a matter of fact, not only does it make you sound like you don't actually understand what you're talking about - thereby inviting potential skepticism and jokes at your expense - it also renders you unreliable as a source of help you're supposedly trying to be for someone.

When you take the time to carefully craft your responses, it shows you genuinely care about developing the person's skills and also see their potential for inventing their own greatness. Introducing other perspectives in the argument demonstrates your own passion for learning with very little, or no bias at all that will undoubtedly inspire others. By that point, you're focussed on addressing the issue with an open mind, not attacking the person to alleviate your own insecurities.

At the end of it all, you'll give yourself an opportunity to learn from the experience as well, whether it's different mentoring styles or the discoveries your mentee made. That's why it's extremely important to be patient when providing critique, because you want the other person to feel like you are with them the whole way, not against them in the slightest.

It isn't always the case that criticism will strengthen a person's character when there is no takeaway to begin with, other than to perhaps dismiss the hopelessly brash people entirely without a second thought. If you so-called blunts out there don't want this to happen, you need to be willing to grow out of whatever personal demon has you by the throat and give rapport a chance.

It's not just the sensitive ones that need to grow out of their shell; a tango for two will make sure of that.