Abraham Lincoln: A Model of Restraint
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. 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 more important than writing the letter: he folded the letter, placed it in his desk drawer and never sent it. They were found there following Lincoln’s assassination.
Historians later concluded that 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 grounded. 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, and 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 that academics and influencers had concocted.
In one moment, Lincoln might have written in anger, but in another, he would speak with gravity. The difference was not personality; it was context, stakes, and moral clarity.
Prior to each encounter, it is truly absurd to imagine Lincoln thinking:
“This Meade situation calls for me to be a Peacock communicator, since Meade must be an Owl communicator.”
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 and sold on the idea that 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 really exist in any meaningful way; and if they do, are they even useful?
I studied communication in college and never stopped pursuing that field of interest. My vested 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. People and relationships aren’t tidy though. It also seemed too marketable, a bit manipulative and slightly evasive. Its expediency in attempting to explain things in an overly simplified manner also activated my skeptical nerve.
Hypothetically, if the term “communication style” were flawed, insufficient, or inaccurate, what could 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 communication improvement 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. Yet, I think it would be prudent to go further and offer a constructive alternative rooted in formation rather than categorization.
What (I believe) 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 that I’m surprised a credible website published it. I’m not going to link it, but it is easy to find in an internet search.
That definition ignores nonverbal communication, along with shifting contexts, power dynamics, emotional volatility, the messiness of human relationships, potential conflict and the difference between high- and low-stakes situations.
It’s too tidy; too neat.
Why the term “Communication Style” Survives
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 and relational habits that evade introspection and therefore erase recognition of 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. I learned that the first rule of sales is to make buying effortless; so 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 person communicating of any 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 high-stakes 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 adapt your driving process as 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. You don’t drive like an owl or a panther, you drive like a human who wants to get to their destination safely.
Claiming, “this is just my driving style,” while speeding through a school zone would not be authenticity; it would be pure 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.
Taking it even further, one could ask:
What does it take to become that kind of person?
Refusing to ask questions like the above results in unnecessary conflict, misunderstanding, and dissatisfaction.
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 and you need to come from a “real place.”
Three Practical Considerations
First, read the context of the situation before you communicate. Consider relationships, volatility and stakes.
Next, slow down under stress. A single breath can turn a spontaneous reaction into a thoughtful response.
Finally, widen your range without losing your center. Adapt without becoming fake. This takes practice in real time. When your values are clear, flexibility does not feel like compromise.
When you are centered, you can adjust without being blown off course.
One Question I Want You to Consider…
When you read there might be no such thing as a “communication style,” what happens inside you?
Lincoln’s Discipline
Lincoln’s greatness was not a style. It was his 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.