Matt Wilkins on Farcaster

Matt Wilkins pfp

Spoke to the CEO who did $10m in revenue last year He was calling to ask my opinions on some things in our industry, and we’d chat and he’d go off on a tangent or deliver the context, but he’d always come around and say, “my direction question is: —“ And boom. It felt like I wasn’t sure where he was leading, and then he’d hit that line and ask a very pointed, very direct question. I loved it. It made things very clear and left no room for ambiguity in response. And it kept the conversation on track Really appreciated that move and is one I’ll be stealing moving forward. I can see why he’s the CEO

3 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

agusti pfp

its the first time I hear the phrase "my direction question is:" is that something only CEO's directing people do or what?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Matt Wilkins pfp

Yea idk. But he did it like 3 or 4 different times. Basically every time he told a story or gave same background on a point he’d end with that line and a very direct question. Feel like it’s a skill developed when your time is valuable and you manage a lot of people

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

agusti pfp

oh so it's a way to like circle back and state what was the point you where trying to make in the first place and tie up the two things? thus the -direction- of the conversation, literally I see I guess as you say managing hundreds of people you need to perfect communication to another level

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

agusti pfp

I'd be like mfer dont try to -control- me tysm

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Matt Wilkins pfp

Lmao it’s not controlling at all. It’s simply highly efficient

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

agusti pfp

can you really be highly efficient without high degrees of control?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Matt Wilkins pfp

Absolutely not. But asking a direct question doesn’t entitle you to a direct answer. Plenty of times I’ve had people try to strongarm me in conversation about how much I make, or people I’ve worked with, etc. And if I don’t want to say I look them dead in the eyes and say, “I’m not telling you that information” Conversations cannot be controlling because you always have determinance of your response. If you are manipulated that’s on you

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

agusti pfp

yea I can see that, its just CEO's tend to shut people down if they dont like what they're saying or doesnt align with their narrative/ideas etc imho| > TL;DR • Technically, you can always refuse to answer ↔ practically, framing still steers outcomes. • The CEO’s “my direct question is…” is process control (time/focus) more than content control. • High efficiency ≠ high micromanagement; you need clarity signals + shared norms rather than heavy-handed dominance. ⸻ 1 Control vs autonomy: not a binary Layer Who holds the lever? Example in this thread Effect on efficiency Process control (turn-taking, agenda) Question-asker “My direct question is…” ↑ throughput by reducing ambiguity Content control (what answer must contain) Responder “I’m not telling you that information.” Stays with you; preserves autonomy Systemic / power control (status, incentives) Context (CEO title, stakes) Implied authority of a $10 M-revenue leader Can bias replies even when refusal is allowed Key point: Process control can boost efficiency without robbing agency, but systemic power can still create felt pressure. ⸻ 2 Why “choice to refuse” doesn’t erase influence • Conversational dominance research shows that who sets the questions and pacing strongly predicts who gets their goals met, even when answers are optional . • Communication scholars argue that all speech acts aim to alter the listener’s behaviour or mental state — that’s manipulation in the neutral, cybernetic sense . • Thus a speaker can shape the decision space without coercion: nudging, priming, spotlighting certain data, etc. The target can refuse but the cost (social friction, lost favour) may not be trivial. ⸻ 3 Reconciling the two perspectives Matt’s claim When it holds When it leaks “Conversations cannot be controlling; you decide.” Peer-level chat, low stakes, symmetrical power Hierarchical settings, implicit incentives, social capital at risk “If you’re manipulated that’s on you.” When alternative responses carry negligible penalty When refusal risks status/job or exploits cognitive biases So: Freedom to say “no” is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee lack of control. ⸻ 4 Efficiency without heavy control: concrete levers 1. Explicit framing cues (“the question I’m driving at is…”) — keep ↗. 2. Shared artefacts (written agenda, decision log) — reduce need for verbal dominance. 3. Time-boxed rounds (everyone gets 2 min) — democratise airtime. 4. Async follow-ups — lets people craft careful answers, decoupling authority from immediacy. These preserve clarity and autonomy; control is in the container, not the content. ⸻ 5 Counter-moves if you feel steam-rolled • Meta-question: “Before I answer, can we clarify why this detail matters?” • Reframe: Offer a different lens: “The higher-leverage question might be…” • Delay: “I’d like to verify that data and circle back.” • Surface norms: “Let’s ensure everyone’s voice is heard; can we park this and hear X?” ⸻ Bottom line The CEO’s tactic is best read as structured clarity. It can slide into dominance if combined with positional power and no room for dissent — but the mere ability to refuse doesn’t neutralise that influence. High efficiency comes from minimal process control + maximal informational clarity, not from policing answers.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction