In its most recent policy statement, the FOMC removed the phrase, “there remains significant underutilization of labor resources” and substituted that the “underutilization of labor resources is gradually diminishing.” Fed watchers have pronounced this hawkish. I have a different reading, resting on my perception of two recent changes I perceive in Fed communications.

First, I believe that the Fed now strives for “no tea leaves” approach to communication. The FOMC declares in its strategy document that it “seeks to explain its monetary policy decisions to the public as clearly as possible.” This is a dramatic change from the situation not so long ago, when speaking about the future course of policy was viewed, both inside the Fed and by most central banks, as a mortal sin. The transparency revolution began tentatively decades ago, with the FOMC offering occasional terse hints about policy. Interested observers justifiably gazed at the few words offered up like so many tea leaves, seeking to divine the future course of policy. Expertise in this form of divination was much prized on Wall Street.

Expert analysts still pour over the FOMC statement, making much of every change. But I think we should adjust our view of what changes mean. Having been involved in the crafting of FOMC statements over the last few years, I believe that small wording changes really do mean something, but small changes tend to mean small things. Fed policymakers engage in lengthy discussions, for instance, over whether growth should be described as modest or moderate (to be honest, I could never remember which is better). Importantly, however, those discussions are about whether small changes in the outlook warrant similarly small changes in FOMC communications.

What is the “no tea leaves” reading of the recent FOMC statement? The former statement said that underutilization of labor resources was significant; the new statement proclaims underutilization to be gradually diminishing. Taken at face value, I suppose this means that underutilization must now be pretty darn close to significant, a condition that will change only gradually. Not much drama there.

Why would the FOMC bother with changes in the FOMC statement if the changes convey so little? This is an important question.

Approximately six weeks passes between FOMC meetings, and in the vast majority of six-week periods, incoming evidence allows the most astute of observers to slightly refine the inevitably hazy view of the state of the economy. To see the challenge this poses for communication, consider a hypothetical example that has some resonance with today. Suppose that policymakers see robust growth emerging. This acceleration in growth would most likely become clear slowly, over many months or a year. Faced with this situation, the FOMC could choose to hold its characterization of the economy fixed as the evidence gradually accumulates and then make a dramatic announcement of a significant change in the outlook. Alternatively, the FOMC could try to be clear about its gradually evolving view. The latter raises communication challenges–exemplified by the moderate vs. modest debates–but this approach is arguably more consistent with the FOMC’s commitment to transparency.

The recent statement also illustrates another ongoing change in Fed communication, I believe. Borrowing a term from a recent speech by Chair Yellen, I’ll call this “the return of nuance.”

For much of the period since early 2009, the overriding message from the Fed has been that the recovery is far from complete and that the Fed will be steadfast in its support for the recovery. The extremity of the situation, combined with the fact that the Fed was, of necessity, employing unfamiliar policy tools, put a premium on bluntness over nuance. One cannot get much more blunt than the January 2012 statement that a high level of accommodation was likely continue at least through late 2014.

In December 2012, the FOMC stated that if inflation remained well behaved, a high level of accommodation would likely be maintained for “at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent.” The day that the FOMC announced what became known as the inflation and unemployment rate thresholds, Chairman Bernanke explained that the:

…modified guidance should provide greater clarity about how the Committee expects to respond to incoming data… Reaching one of those thresholds, however, will not automatically trigger immediate reduction in policy accommodation… [N]o single indicator provides a complete assessment of the state of the labor market and therefore [the Committee] will consider changes in the unemployment rate within the broader context of labor market conditions.

The employment threshold was a blunt but clear declaration of support for the recovery; more subtle assessments would be required once the economy was nearer to normal. In a speech earlier this year, Chair Yellen echoes the same message.

If the FOMC’s recent change in the characterization of the labor market was momentous in any way, it was momentous in marking the removal of the final bit of blunt-but-clear, “there is a long way left to go,” language from the FOMC statement. With the unemployment rate at 5.9 percent at the time of the FOMC meeting, the unemployment rate had a moved into the upper end of the range that FOMC members report as their individual assessments of what is normal. The unemployment rate was within half a percentage point of the central tendency of FOMC participants’ reports of normal. While it seems that there is never a good time for a change, I suppose this meeting was as natural a time as any.

No hawks, doves, or tea leaves–just a modest shift in language reflecting continued gradual progress in the recovery.