>Your interpretation is overly literal, IMO. I did not give an interpretation. I asked a question. I don't think a description of what it means to remember you

>Your interpretation is overly literal, IMO. I did not give an interpretation. I asked a question. I don't think a description of what it means to remember you are talking to a person was given even though it was claimed that one should do it. If I should be doing it, I need to know what it is. Then, I can see if I am actually doing it, and if I am not, start doing it again. I think it is an entirely reasonable question. >In the context of giving critical feedback, it's easy to focus on the problem, the specific area you want to correct, and reduce the person on the other side to just being the cause of the problem. Certainly. People are generally not the causes of problems, so looking there is probably a waste of time. I think the far more effective strategy is working to eliminate the problem and modify processes to ensure that the problem never happens again. Any problem, in a corporate context, is a failing of the entire team, not any individual. >It's easy to forget that the developer is a person with a lifetime of experiences different from yours, a different perspective, different strengths and weaknesses, different insecurities, different stuff going on in their personal life. Maybe our difference is on how easy this is. I don't think that is very easy to forget. All you need to do is realize that you are a person with all of those things and that you are not that other person. >I haven't been on the receiving end myself, but I have often seen managers give feedback that is belittling and reduces the entire worth of a person to a single mistake. I think it's a rampant problem. I guess people just want to blame others rather than make things better? I seem to detect instances of it all the time, that seem to be casually accepted by most. For example, General Motor's response to a faulty piece of equipment they were using in their cars was to fire the engineer who designed it. Almost no mind was paid to the fact that GM's process allowed critical parts to be wholly designed and signed off on by a single individual.