Abraham Lincoln: A Model of Disciplined Formation
Rethinking “Communication Styles” Part One
American President Abraham Lincoln had a habit of writing letters to his Union generals during the Civil War in the United States to maintain steady communication between the White House and the front lines was steady and open. On several occasions, however, his letters were unusually sharp for the era. One memorable target of his private frustration was General George Meade.
In one letter following Meade’s loss at Gettysburg, Lincoln expressed his disappointment over the general’s indecision, hesitation, and lack of progress. Then he did something instructive: he folded the letter, placed it in his desk drawer and never sent it.
Historians later concluded Lincoln wrote these letters as a coping mechanism; a private outlet for anger that prevented it from governing his public leadership.
Two months after one such letter for another military fiasco, Lincoln stood in Gettysburg, speaking with a radically different tone: restrained, measured, and luminous. In just 272 words, he delivered an address that would outlast every battlefield report and every angry memo of the war.
Lincoln did not have two “communication styles.”
Rather, he possessed sound judgment and the discernment to understand what was needed, when it was needed. Like anyone else, each situation and context determined how he would express himself more than aligning with some predetermined communication category academics and influencers had concocted. In one moment, he wrote in anger, but in another, he spoke with gravity. The difference was not personality; it was context, stakes, and moral clarity.
Prior to each encounter, it is absurd to imagine Lincoln thinking:
“This Meade situation calls for me to be a Dolphin communicator, since Meade must be an Owl and then when I’m in Gettysburg in a few months, I’ll take on the Peacock persona.”
And yet, the above historical hypothetical reflects exactly what technique-focused influencers are encouraging and attempting to sell in the modern professional and personal development market.
What the nation needed wasn’t a “dolphin communicator.” Instead, what they got was a leader who could read the moment, weigh the responsibility, and adjust himself accordingly considering the high stakes he was facing.
Commoditizing Communication
Call it a curse of modernity, but for years, we’ve been told we each have a “communication style.” There are so many personality tests, corporate training systems, and social media quizzes covering these categories that the phrase has become nearly unavoidable and ubiquitous.
With how common this phrase has become, one simple question has been nagging at me:
Do communication styles exist in any meaningful way; and if they do, are they even useful?
I studied communication in college and never stopped pursuing that knowledge. My interest in the communication discipline has remained both practical and philosophical. I wanted to know not just how people talk, but what real and true communication requires of us as human beings.
In business, leadership, and volunteer religious service, I repeatedly encountered the term and language of “communication styles.” And if I’m honest, something about it often bothered me. It felt too tidy, too marketable, a bit manipulative and slightly evasive. Its expediency in attempting to explain things also made me uncomfortable.
If this term is flawed, insufficient, or inaccurate, what should we use to replace it? Maybe it’s not just the term, but the entire premise that needs to be replaced.
Enter David Novak
While preparing to teach a class, I came across David Novak’s thoughtful article that pushed back on fixed communication styles. He rightly challenged the idea that people can be neatly boxed into stable communicative types. I resonated with much of his argument.
However, it seems his critique stopped at least one step short. I wanted more.
Novak exposes the problem. However, I think it would be prudent to go further and offer a constructive alternative rooted in formation rather than categorization.
What People Mean by “Communication Style”
When advocates attempt to define the term, it is often reduced to something like:
“A communication style is the way in which we share information with others through language.”
This definition is far too thin for the weight placed on it. It ignores nonverbal communication, shifting context, power dynamics, emotional volatility, and the difference between high- and low-stakes situations.
Why Communication Styles Persist
If communication styles are so limited, why do they persist? I see three primary reasons:
First, they reduce friction.
Humans love tidy categories. Saying, “I’m a direct communicator” can be a way of justifying harmful behavior rather than confronting the need for growth. The same shortcut that excuses our behavior also flattens others into stereotypes.
Second, they sell well.
Styles can be packaged into colorful quizzes, charts, and workshops. The first rule of sales is to make buying effortless, and simplified models of complex human behavior are easy to monetize.
Third, they externalize responsibility.
Phrases like “That’s just how I communicate” or “I’m a competitive communicator, so get used to it” subtly absolve the communicator of accountability. This is perhaps the most insidious appeal of all.
Some Inherent Problems with “Communication Styles”
Styles confuse description with justification. “I’m blunt” or “I don’t like confrontation” may describe a tendency and even preference, but it does not excuse sarcasm, pettiness or anger.
Styles treat communication as static rather than situational. Labeling yourself and then attempting to perform that label across contexts is not only foolish, but it can also be reckless. For example, imagine speaking to your five-year-old the same way you speak to your boss, we’d call that a problem, not a “style.”
Styles collapse under pressure. No diagram prepares you for conversations where your integrity, marriage, or leadership is on the line.
What if You had a Fixed “Driving Style?”
You don’t have a single driving style; rather you “put on” a driving style when conditions change. You drive differently on the freeway, in a school zone, in a rainstorm, or on an icy road. The same could be said for times when you encounter high traffic versus low traffic conditions.
Claiming, “this is just my driving style,” while speeding through a school zone would not be authenticity; it would be irresponsibility.
Communication works the same way.
Formation: A Better Way Forward
Formation is the slow shaping of judgment, restraint, and responsibility over time. By rejecting fixed styles, responsibility returns to where it belongs: the communicator.
Instead of asking, “What is my communication style?” we should ask:
What kind of person does this moment require?
That’s not just a technique question. It is a formation question. It focuses on embodiment, not just behavior.
Refusing to ask questions like the above results in conflict, misunderstanding, and dissatisfaction continues to erupt.
All Style, No Substance
Treating communication as a costume encourages performative adaptation without inner change. It obscures ethical responsibility and fails precisely when it matters most.
You don’t need to determine whether you’re a peacock or a panther.
You need discipline.
Three Practical Considerations
First, read the context before you communicate. Consider power, volatility and stakes.
Next, slow down under stress. A single breath can separate reaction from response.
Finally, widen your range without losing your center. Adapt without becoming fake. When your values are clear, flexibility does not feel like compromise.
When you are centered, you can adjust without being blown off course.
Lincoln’s Discipline
Lincoln’s greatness was not a style. It was restraint. If anger was expressed privately, anger did not govern publicly. A narrow path to tread indeed.
That is what maturity looks like and taking that a step further, communication maturity is not about discovering a style. It is about formation, so your speech becomes precise, restrained, truthful and therefore, aligned with what is going on inside of you; no matter who is listening.
It’s about becoming, not wearing.
© 2026 Cameron M. Clark - All rights reserved.
All essays and materials on this site are original works by Cameron Clark. You are welcome to share links and quote brief excerpts with attribution. Reproduction, republication, or commercial use of this material without written permission is not permitted.