This military communications standard probably goes a long ways towards explaining why people seem to either think I'm rude, crude and socially unacceptable or refreshingly direct with no BS.
I completely identify myself with this. Many people told me that I was rude because of my way I communicate in workplace. But since then, the group I'm working with got used to me and some of them have adopted this style. Sometimes we're really hurry with the schedules and continuous feedback among us has helped us to meet that schedules.
One unfortunate thing about the opposite, very polite or "guess" communicator, is that sometimes when one provides all necessary data immediately, that communication is simply not heard.
Very polite communicators actually can have trouble processing a situation that's fully laid out before without the protocols of etiquette. It's heck of annoying but one can learn to adjust to it also.
I actually think that sort of thing is a major underlying problem in male-female communication. When a woman says and does the same things as a man, it can get interpreted completely differently due to either the simple fact that she is female or due to subtle differences between "male culture" and "female culture" so to speak. (as just one example.)
I get that there is no single standard that works everywhere all the time. But I've personally found it very helpful to realize that low context culture is not somehow "socially worse" than high context culture. Viewing it that way implicitly promotes xenophobia, which ends up being justification for things like white supremacy -- ie "You people who are not like us are fundamentally Doing It Wrong because you are doing it different from how we would handle it."
It was helpful to me to realize this is a legitimate form of communication that faces specific pitfalls in the world and not some sort of character defect on my end. That helps me make judgment calls about when to approach things one way versus another and also helps me make my peace with "You can't please all of the people all of the time."
Indeed, I remember a friend of who told me "Just imagine a fat, middle-aged guy speaking when I communicate". Of course, the problem was I could hear this but the guy she wanted to get this through to couldn't.
Which is to say that some guys can completely shift gears and accept the woman communicating as just one of the guys. And some can't. And it's not divided in some liberal/conservative fashion.
Yes, this is the point. I think there is no single right style of communication. People should be aware of that and especially in the workplace not only encourage that but also base hiring decisions on that. Large groups that regular meet in the workplace and consist only of people talking overly polite might hide issues under the rug. The paradox is that one has the same situations with people talking in this top-down military style because complex problems cannot be communicated this way effectively, they often take patience to listen.
Also indeed there is no correlation between both styles and whether the people talking like that are polite or impolite. Massive impoliteness can also be hidden behind polite phrasing and intonation and vice-versa.
BLUF is completely disarming to sensitive people. Consider it a subcultural impasse.
BLUF, as a generalized communication style, is a way of thinking that impatiently violates the social pleasantries of socializing for the sake of being social.
This military communications standard probably goes a long ways towards explaining why people seem to either think I'm rude, crude and socially unacceptable or refreshingly direct with no BS.