sufficiently vague, so as to seem insightful

ah, ambiguity. it makes the slices of life so round-edged. why be direct when you can be, how would you say... je ne sais quoi?

it's more of a diplomatic approach to human interfacing, really. indeed, it is the very thing that creates a foundation for more dialogue of any given matter at hand. directness is too abrasive, or can be deemed so. and, as someone once said, you never want to rub another man's rhubarb. for example, if bob is a disruptive presence in staff meetings, there are distinct methods in which to address the issue:

Method A: "Bob, if I could have a quick word? Good. Bob, just something to think about for tomorrow's staff meeting. We'd like for you to align yourself more with the general dynamic of the larger group and broaden your interactions with colleagues in a manner that speaks to our collective connectedness. Just... something for you to think about, Bob. Thanks."

Method B: "Bob, tell you what. You're going to have to start wearing pants to the meetings, and by that, I mean starting today, OK? I will not have you walking around exposed in this office. Do you hear me? And you know I would've shit-canned you months ago if your second uncle wasn't on the board of directors."

So now, what remains is the question of compliance. When the larger group is considered, Method A is the path of least resistance. There has been (offline) communication with Bob about his behavioral patterns. The idea is now out there for Bob to mull over and come to his own conclusion as to whether he should wear pants to tomorrow's meeting. You've positioned your communication with Bob in a way that neutralizes potential push back on his part. Bob, in turn, effectively saves face...