8 ms·

I mean, regardless of the justification, this is not a very professional way to talk to a fellow colleague. Something like, "it's important that this server is

I mean, regardless of the justification, this is not a very professional way to talk to a fellow colleague. Something like, "it's important that this server is configured correctly, so I think it would be better if I took care of it myself, if that's ok with you" would have been a lot better.

blazespin 11y ago
Agreed, but if you don't get that, you shouldn't take it personally. Which I hope is what the OP is trying to say.
- danharaj 11y ago
  Honestly, if we shouldn't take personal interactions personally, then what exactly should be taken personally?
  - afandian 11y ago
    Intention.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      Intentions don't change how an interaction affects me. Your definition of what to take personally is exactly that part of an interaction that is not me. That's absurd.
      - afandian 11y ago
        I try to balance my gut instinct and my empathy and theory of mind. If someone does something that offends me, but I know after a few seconds' thought that they didn't intend to, for example they were busy or look upset for some reason, then it would be foolish to take offence. If someone does something that is extra polite and friendly and massages my ego, but I know that they hate me and are being two-faced (for whatever reason) I might take offence. Of course, everyone's different, but most people's theory of mind is developed to this point past past a certain age. I don't think it's absurd to take some responsibility for your own thoughts. I think it's how society hangs together.
  - pluma 11y ago
    I hope you recognize that your argument is a strawman. It's absurd to never take any personal interactions personally. It's equally absurd to take every personal interaction personally. Your argument is basically the twitter problem: stop judging people by individual statements or interactions, understand that there's an entire separate being on the other end of every conversation with concerns and experiences of their own.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      Yeah, and on this end is me. Therefore a conversation is personal. This is flabbergasting. Under what conditions am I allowed to judge a personal interaction based on how it affects me? > It's equally absurd to take every personal interaction personally. Ok, which personal interactions should not be taken personally? Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds definitionally?
      - dwaltrip 11y ago
        You can't delineate a set of criteria for when to take a statement said to you "personally". For one thing, taking something personally isn't a binary attribute, it is far more complicated than that. Use your best judgment and try to give people the benefit of the doubt (this requires practicing empathy, which is difficult). Realize most people are usually not thinking about you, because they are too busy thinking about themselves. I find it beneficial to try to act in a way that leaves the most people feeling positively (including myself).
        danharaj 11y ago
        This is still ridiculous. Because someone else is being inconsiderate of how their actions affect me, i should ignore how their actions affect me. I have to admit i am being somewhat coy by taking issue with the post i replied to, which, by the way, makes a general prescription of what not to take personally without knowing any context. I understand the attitude of ignoring things that cause personal discomfort or harm based on intended effect. I think it's ridiculous, and more often than not people prescribe such behavior for others but are quite comfortable taking personally that which... personally affects them. Silent forgiveness for the inconsiderate instead of numerous means of improving one's relationship with them. Telling someone that they are treating you in an unacceptable manner is, by definition, taking it personally. And being passive and avoiding such conversations is exactly how unpleasant social interactions persist and grow into a climate of alienation and dysfunction. > You can't delineate a set of criteria for when to take a statement said to you "personally". Sure i can. When it affects you, personally. People who disagree with me can't come up with a set of criteria. Without such a criteria, there is no justification of the attitude. > For one thing, taking something personally isn't a binary attribute, it is far more complicated than that. Taking something personally is binary in this way: you either ignore the personal effects a relationship has on you or you signal/take action based on those personal effects. All of the complication lies in how one proceeds based on their feelings. Mediation and conflict resolution are complicated yes. But you can't resolve a conflict without signaling that it exists and that you have a personal stake in it. That is exactly what taking something personally means. There are large-scale social implications. People who are lower in status are told to not take it personally more often than people of higher status. When a boss is emotionally abusive, people are far more likely to excuse such behavior than if an underling is being emotionally abusive. In other words, prescribing to people to passively accept uncomfortable or harmful social interactions without protest becomes a mechanism of power. The effects are alienation, depersonalization, stress, and social dysfunction. That shit infests our society.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ChrisDutrow 11y ago
> Something like, "it's important that this server is configured correctly, so I think it would be better if I took care of it myself, if that's ok with you" This is worlds better than being rude. In my experience it errs a little in the other direction because it leaves the situation a little ambiguous (and thus invites more conflict) by implying that it is debatable. Especially the "if that is ok with you part" I might try something like: "it's important that this server is configured correctly, so it would be better if I took care of it myself, I Appreciate the effort though!"
- DrJokepu 11y ago
  Yes, however, depending on the situation, it might be better to try to figure out why they want to do it themselves and offer an alternative, if possible. For example, if they want to do it because they want to gain experience configuring servers, you could tell them something like "I think I should really do this myself, but how about configuring $NEXT_TEST_ENVIRONMENT_SERVER next week?" or "Ok, then how about us doing it together?".
- icebraining 11y ago
  I find it interesting that both of these revisions include an assumption of incompetence by the junior, while the original was more ambiguous in that regard.
  - ChrisDutrow 11y ago
    He clarified somewhere in the comments that he was a junior that the time.
spyspy 11y ago
Unfortunately I can very much understand the original snap. I know I've said things like this and I'm sure a lot of people here have, too, even if they don't remember. I'm willing to assume that the original speaker was in some way overstressed, overworked and had just lost patience at that moment. It's easy to know what the better thing to say is in retrospect but usually people just want to get their message across.
- tamana 11y ago
  Sure you can't prevent snapping. But you can be mature and self-reflect and apologize afterward, which often motivated self reflection and apology from others as well, leading to improved behavior all around in future.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
apalmer 11y ago
honestly this is not correct from a communication perspective. Literally this is a team lead educating a junior developer who completely oversteps his bounds and does not even understand why this is an issue. In dissecting your statement, "it's important that this server is configured correctly, so I think it would be better if I took care of it myself, if that's ok with you" clause one is ok, but does not provide a 'why'. clause two leaves too much leeway as to whether the junior developer action is acceptable going forward. clause three is actively negative as it opens up debate for something that is not up for debate. a proper communication would have been to take the junior somewhere away from anyone else, made sure that the tone of voice was unagressive but authorative, and stated something along the lines that, this is not a major issue but we need to have an important quick conversation, first explain that number 1 what the issue is, explain number two the underlying why, and explain what will happen go forward, make sure he understands this is not a debate, this is you giving him direction on what will occur going forward, i would give him an oppurtunity to meaningfully contribute in the future if it made sense, finally make sure he understands. being to flimsy or wishy washy is NOT good communication
- DrJokepu 11y ago
  I get your point, but I think your management style is very different from mine. People overstepping their bounds getting reprimanded in an authoritative voice away from anyone else is simply not the kind of work environment I want to foster. If this is a recurring problem and previous, friendlier attempts have failed already then it's necessary to rephrase the message in a clear, authoritative manner but in my experience this is very rarely, if ever needed.
  - apalmer 11y ago
    I am going to respectfully highlight why I think this is a mistake. The original communication does not actually communicate the underlying issue in this particular case. Its not a 'friendly' vs 'unfriendly' communication issue. Its an issue that the communication is NOT actually communicating what the intent of the message is. The intent of the message is 'this is not your responsibility, although you intend to help you are actually making more work for others not less, do not do this or similar things again, without consulting the person who's responsibility it is beforehand' thats the message. the way its phrased if the person is a senior he is going to understand what you are 'really' telling him in nice words. if the person is a junior he is going to think you are really entering a debate about how this should be approached, and that you need to reach consensus with him about the approach, and that although you didnt accept his contribution this time, next time or next situation this may be a reasonable way to contribute to the team. you have communicated the wrong thing to your target audience. its bad communication. its not 'unfriendlier' to communicate directly what you actually mean and to provide clear guidance and correction to a junior.

blazespin 11y ago

Agreed, but if you don't get that, you shouldn't take it personally. Which I hope is what the OP is trying to say.

danharaj 11y ago
Honestly, if we shouldn't take personal interactions personally, then what exactly should be taken personally?
- afandian 11y ago
  Intention.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    Intentions don't change how an interaction affects me. Your definition of what to take personally is exactly that part of an interaction that is not me. That's absurd.
    - afandian 11y ago
      I try to balance my gut instinct and my empathy and theory of mind. If someone does something that offends me, but I know after a few seconds' thought that they didn't intend to, for example they were busy or look upset for some reason, then it would be foolish to take offence. If someone does something that is extra polite and friendly and massages my ego, but I know that they hate me and are being two-faced (for whatever reason) I might take offence. Of course, everyone's different, but most people's theory of mind is developed to this point past past a certain age. I don't think it's absurd to take some responsibility for your own thoughts. I think it's how society hangs together.
- pluma 11y ago
  I hope you recognize that your argument is a strawman. It's absurd to never take any personal interactions personally. It's equally absurd to take every personal interaction personally. Your argument is basically the twitter problem: stop judging people by individual statements or interactions, understand that there's an entire separate being on the other end of every conversation with concerns and experiences of their own.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    Yeah, and on this end is me. Therefore a conversation is personal. This is flabbergasting. Under what conditions am I allowed to judge a personal interaction based on how it affects me? > It's equally absurd to take every personal interaction personally. Ok, which personal interactions should not be taken personally? Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds definitionally?
    - dwaltrip 11y ago
      You can't delineate a set of criteria for when to take a statement said to you "personally". For one thing, taking something personally isn't a binary attribute, it is far more complicated than that. Use your best judgment and try to give people the benefit of the doubt (this requires practicing empathy, which is difficult). Realize most people are usually not thinking about you, because they are too busy thinking about themselves. I find it beneficial to try to act in a way that leaves the most people feeling positively (including myself).
      - danharaj 11y ago
        This is still ridiculous. Because someone else is being inconsiderate of how their actions affect me, i should ignore how their actions affect me. I have to admit i am being somewhat coy by taking issue with the post i replied to, which, by the way, makes a general prescription of what not to take personally without knowing any context. I understand the attitude of ignoring things that cause personal discomfort or harm based on intended effect. I think it's ridiculous, and more often than not people prescribe such behavior for others but are quite comfortable taking personally that which... personally affects them. Silent forgiveness for the inconsiderate instead of numerous means of improving one's relationship with them. Telling someone that they are treating you in an unacceptable manner is, by definition, taking it personally. And being passive and avoiding such conversations is exactly how unpleasant social interactions persist and grow into a climate of alienation and dysfunction. > You can't delineate a set of criteria for when to take a statement said to you "personally". Sure i can. When it affects you, personally. People who disagree with me can't come up with a set of criteria. Without such a criteria, there is no justification of the attitude. > For one thing, taking something personally isn't a binary attribute, it is far more complicated than that. Taking something personally is binary in this way: you either ignore the personal effects a relationship has on you or you signal/take action based on those personal effects. All of the complication lies in how one proceeds based on their feelings. Mediation and conflict resolution are complicated yes. But you can't resolve a conflict without signaling that it exists and that you have a personal stake in it. That is exactly what taking something personally means. There are large-scale social implications. People who are lower in status are told to not take it personally more often than people of higher status. When a boss is emotionally abusive, people are far more likely to excuse such behavior than if an underling is being emotionally abusive. In other words, prescribing to people to passively accept uncomfortable or harmful social interactions without protest becomes a mechanism of power. The effects are alienation, depersonalization, stress, and social dysfunction. That shit infests our society.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ChrisDutrow 11y ago

> Something like, "it's important that this server is configured correctly, so I think it would be better if I took care of it myself, if that's ok with you" This is worlds better than being rude. In my experience it errs a little in the other direction because it leaves the situation a little ambiguous (and thus invites more conflict) by implying that it is debatable. Especially the "if that is ok with you part" I might try something like: "it's important that this server is configured correctly, so it would be better if I took care of it myself, I Appreciate the effort though!"

DrJokepu 11y ago
Yes, however, depending on the situation, it might be better to try to figure out why they want to do it themselves and offer an alternative, if possible. For example, if they want to do it because they want to gain experience configuring servers, you could tell them something like "I think I should really do this myself, but how about configuring $NEXT_TEST_ENVIRONMENT_SERVER next week?" or "Ok, then how about us doing it together?".
icebraining 11y ago
I find it interesting that both of these revisions include an assumption of incompetence by the junior, while the original was more ambiguous in that regard.
- ChrisDutrow 11y ago
  He clarified somewhere in the comments that he was a junior that the time.

spyspy 11y ago

Unfortunately I can very much understand the original snap. I know I've said things like this and I'm sure a lot of people here have, too, even if they don't remember. I'm willing to assume that the original speaker was in some way overstressed, overworked and had just lost patience at that moment. It's easy to know what the better thing to say is in retrospect but usually people just want to get their message across.

tamana 11y ago
Sure you can't prevent snapping. But you can be mature and self-reflect and apologize afterward, which often motivated self reflection and apology from others as well, leading to improved behavior all around in future.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

apalmer 11y ago

honestly this is not correct from a communication perspective. Literally this is a team lead educating a junior developer who completely oversteps his bounds and does not even understand why this is an issue. In dissecting your statement, "it's important that this server is configured correctly, so I think it would be better if I took care of it myself, if that's ok with you" clause one is ok, but does not provide a 'why'. clause two leaves too much leeway as to whether the junior developer action is acceptable going forward. clause three is actively negative as it opens up debate for something that is not up for debate. a proper communication would have been to take the junior somewhere away from anyone else, made sure that the tone of voice was unagressive but authorative, and stated something along the lines that, this is not a major issue but we need to have an important quick conversation, first explain that number 1 what the issue is, explain number two the underlying why, and explain what will happen go forward, make sure he understands this is not a debate, this is you giving him direction on what will occur going forward, i would give him an oppurtunity to meaningfully contribute in the future if it made sense, finally make sure he understands. being to flimsy or wishy washy is NOT good communication

DrJokepu 11y ago
I get your point, but I think your management style is very different from mine. People overstepping their bounds getting reprimanded in an authoritative voice away from anyone else is simply not the kind of work environment I want to foster. If this is a recurring problem and previous, friendlier attempts have failed already then it's necessary to rephrase the message in a clear, authoritative manner but in my experience this is very rarely, if ever needed.
- apalmer 11y ago
  I am going to respectfully highlight why I think this is a mistake. The original communication does not actually communicate the underlying issue in this particular case. Its not a 'friendly' vs 'unfriendly' communication issue. Its an issue that the communication is NOT actually communicating what the intent of the message is. The intent of the message is 'this is not your responsibility, although you intend to help you are actually making more work for others not less, do not do this or similar things again, without consulting the person who's responsibility it is beforehand' thats the message. the way its phrased if the person is a senior he is going to understand what you are 'really' telling him in nice words. if the person is a junior he is going to think you are really entering a debate about how this should be approached, and that you need to reach consensus with him about the approach, and that although you didnt accept his contribution this time, next time or next situation this may be a reasonable way to contribute to the team. you have communicated the wrong thing to your target audience. its bad communication. its not 'unfriendlier' to communicate directly what you actually mean and to provide clear guidance and correction to a junior.