4 ms·

I think anger is ok and justified at times, and not always just a consequence of being in the wrong state of mind, etc. I think we're more and more moving to a

I think anger is ok and justified at times, and not always just a consequence of being in the wrong state of mind, etc. I think we're more and more moving to a mindset where anger is just not really ever acceptable, either to feel or to display. But, that's all a bit heavy for what this is trying to accomplish, which is certainly an understandable goal.

Pigo 10y ago
It's a concern I share. I know this about a fun use of some high tech sorcery, but life is already too calm for me sometimes. I see people jump through ridiculous hoops to avoid any and all conflict. There are industries built around relieving people of the stress of having to interact with each other.
coredog64 10y ago
True story: I sent a technically correct, succinct email to someone in another division. They complained up to their VP, who talked to my VP, and then the st rolled downhill on me. Allegedly, the problem was that I hadn't apologized that they were having a bad experience with a service that we offer.
- iamatworknow 10y ago
  I've also started questioning how I phrase my own work related e-mails. Yesterday I was sent one from a partner saying that some files we were to transfer to their FTP server (yeah, I know it's 2017) were missing. So I logged into the server manually and checked -- the files were there, created at 5 AM, just like they are everyday when the cron job that generates them was run. So I started my response by saying, "I just checked the server manually and the files were there. Why do you consider them missing?" But then I started to think...would this reply come off as if I were questioning their intelligence? They must believe that the files actually aren't there, or else they wouldn't have sent me an e-mail asking. The same process has been running everyday since February of last year, however, and presumably they had never failed to find the files before yesterday. I just sent the e-mail anyway, but it is interesting that I've been conditioned to question myself over a very innocuous reply to make sure my tone was appropriate, as to not risk offending the other party.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    > I just sent the e-mail anyway, but it is interesting that I've been conditioned to question myself over a very innocuous reply to make sure my tone was appropriate, as to not risk offending the other party. That's a good habit to get into, particularly given how many of our usual non-verbal cues don't come across in email. I often think to myself "I'm about to send a mail to X hundred/thousand people; it's worth my taking a couple extra moments or even minutes considering exactly how it might come across".
  - bigbetsbigmoney 10y ago
    well in this case your reply IS very condescending. lmao. "I just checked the server manually and the files were there. Could you check again and let me know if they still aren't showing up for you?" would probably be a better way to phrase what you're saying.
    - Sgt_Apone 10y ago
      Agreed on its own, but I would consider the personality sending it. A manager I worked with sent emails that sounded like Data trying to parse human communication and often seemed condescending, but in person, the guy was very affable. Turns out he is just a poor communicator through text. If I got the above message from a someone in another division, I would think he was being condescending on purpose.
      - iamatworknow 10y ago
        Maybe I should also add that this partner has been a nightmare to work with for well over a year, so perhaps some of my annoyance with them in general is shining through. They have certainly talked down to me before in a very transparent way, when in fact they were the ones in the wrong, so I don't feel all that bad. For example, there was a multiple day e-mail back-and-forth debating XML namespaces for SOAP requests on another related project. My code generated XML with different namespace labels than those in their examples, so they told me it was "incorrect". I had to send them the specific section of the SOAP spec to illustrate that the labels can be anything as long as they are set to the appropriate URI -- they're labels. They didn't believe me, thought that the differing namespace labels were what were causing the requests to be rejected on their end...until a few days later when it turned out that it was a completely unrelated bug in their system.
siliconc0w 10y ago
Anger is definitely not okay. Ideally, you say - 'This project isn't working because you failed to gather requirements from the right users." or "You spent three months choosing a vendor without proper due diligence who doesn't have a working client library, documentation, or a functioning test endpoint". However the proper way to express anger in our enlightened business environment is passively and non specifically. "I'm unsure that this project is accomplishing it's goals." or "the team is having trouble with the vendor you chose" and then you schedule a 1:1 meeting to talk about it over a warm beverage where you adhere to a 10:1 complement to criticism ratio.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > Ideally, you say - 'This project isn't working because you failed to gather requirements from the right users." or "You spent three months choosing a vendor without proper due diligence who doesn't have a working client library, documentation, or a functioning test endpoint". Both of those statements are completely reasonable. Don't conflate directness with anger, berating, personal attacks, etc. It's entirely possible to be direct without attacking people.
  - HappyTypist 10y ago
    Totally. It often helps to depersonalise the message by saying "this project isn't working because the requirements weren't gathered from the right users" tho.
- ignoramceisblis 10y ago
  > Anger is definitely not okay. This sounds like you're saying anger is never okay. Is that true? Because I can think of many instances when there's something more important than "not being angry", and anger may be necessary to achieve that goal. I also don't follow your prescription for roundabout criticism. I've worked successfully with many teams where we were much more direct, and we were very pleased with our outcomes, and fellow team members.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Banthum 10y ago
I think you're right, but anger actually works better in person. The problem with anger over text, especially email, is that the angry message sits there and stews and stays angry at the recipient for hours or days. And they have lots of time to stew themselves and consider their response and go over lots of counter-anger thoughts in their own mind, before sending something back. In-person anger can come and go quickly; it gets resolved; it doesn't continue for hours and hours and wear people down. Especially the way men interact (in some subcultures), anger is just a way to communicate a sense of urgency or import, and can quickly reverse into relief and camaraderie once it's acknowledged. (Of course this isn't universal, but it is a style that can work depending on context and culture, and if it's not overused).

Pigo 10y ago

It's a concern I share. I know this about a fun use of some high tech sorcery, but life is already too calm for me sometimes. I see people jump through ridiculous hoops to avoid any and all conflict. There are industries built around relieving people of the stress of having to interact with each other.

coredog64 10y ago

True story: I sent a technically correct, succinct email to someone in another division. They complained up to their VP, who talked to my VP, and then the st rolled downhill on me. Allegedly, the problem was that I hadn't apologized that they were having a bad experience with a service that we offer.

iamatworknow 10y ago
I've also started questioning how I phrase my own work related e-mails. Yesterday I was sent one from a partner saying that some files we were to transfer to their FTP server (yeah, I know it's 2017) were missing. So I logged into the server manually and checked -- the files were there, created at 5 AM, just like they are everyday when the cron job that generates them was run. So I started my response by saying, "I just checked the server manually and the files were there. Why do you consider them missing?" But then I started to think...would this reply come off as if I were questioning their intelligence? They must believe that the files actually aren't there, or else they wouldn't have sent me an e-mail asking. The same process has been running everyday since February of last year, however, and presumably they had never failed to find the files before yesterday. I just sent the e-mail anyway, but it is interesting that I've been conditioned to question myself over a very innocuous reply to make sure my tone was appropriate, as to not risk offending the other party.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > I just sent the e-mail anyway, but it is interesting that I've been conditioned to question myself over a very innocuous reply to make sure my tone was appropriate, as to not risk offending the other party. That's a good habit to get into, particularly given how many of our usual non-verbal cues don't come across in email. I often think to myself "I'm about to send a mail to X hundred/thousand people; it's worth my taking a couple extra moments or even minutes considering exactly how it might come across".
- bigbetsbigmoney 10y ago
  well in this case your reply IS very condescending. lmao. "I just checked the server manually and the files were there. Could you check again and let me know if they still aren't showing up for you?" would probably be a better way to phrase what you're saying.
  - Sgt_Apone 10y ago
    Agreed on its own, but I would consider the personality sending it. A manager I worked with sent emails that sounded like Data trying to parse human communication and often seemed condescending, but in person, the guy was very affable. Turns out he is just a poor communicator through text. If I got the above message from a someone in another division, I would think he was being condescending on purpose.
    - iamatworknow 10y ago
      Maybe I should also add that this partner has been a nightmare to work with for well over a year, so perhaps some of my annoyance with them in general is shining through. They have certainly talked down to me before in a very transparent way, when in fact they were the ones in the wrong, so I don't feel all that bad. For example, there was a multiple day e-mail back-and-forth debating XML namespaces for SOAP requests on another related project. My code generated XML with different namespace labels than those in their examples, so they told me it was "incorrect". I had to send them the specific section of the SOAP spec to illustrate that the labels can be anything as long as they are set to the appropriate URI -- they're labels. They didn't believe me, thought that the differing namespace labels were what were causing the requests to be rejected on their end...until a few days later when it turned out that it was a completely unrelated bug in their system.

siliconc0w 10y ago

Anger is definitely not okay. Ideally, you say - 'This project isn't working because you failed to gather requirements from the right users." or "You spent three months choosing a vendor without proper due diligence who doesn't have a working client library, documentation, or a functioning test endpoint". However the proper way to express anger in our enlightened business environment is passively and non specifically. "I'm unsure that this project is accomplishing it's goals." or "the team is having trouble with the vendor you chose" and then you schedule a 1:1 meeting to talk about it over a warm beverage where you adhere to a 10:1 complement to criticism ratio.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
> Ideally, you say - 'This project isn't working because you failed to gather requirements from the right users." or "You spent three months choosing a vendor without proper due diligence who doesn't have a working client library, documentation, or a functioning test endpoint". Both of those statements are completely reasonable. Don't conflate directness with anger, berating, personal attacks, etc. It's entirely possible to be direct without attacking people.
- HappyTypist 10y ago
  Totally. It often helps to depersonalise the message by saying "this project isn't working because the requirements weren't gathered from the right users" tho.
ignoramceisblis 10y ago
> Anger is definitely not okay. This sounds like you're saying anger is never okay. Is that true? Because I can think of many instances when there's something more important than "not being angry", and anger may be necessary to achieve that goal. I also don't follow your prescription for roundabout criticism. I've worked successfully with many teams where we were much more direct, and we were very pleased with our outcomes, and fellow team members.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Banthum 10y ago

I think you're right, but anger actually works better in person. The problem with anger over text, especially email, is that the angry message sits there and stews and stays angry at the recipient for hours or days. And they have lots of time to stew themselves and consider their response and go over lots of counter-anger thoughts in their own mind, before sending something back. In-person anger can come and go quickly; it gets resolved; it doesn't continue for hours and hours and wear people down. Especially the way men interact (in some subcultures), anger is just a way to communicate a sense of urgency or import, and can quickly reverse into relief and camaraderie once it's acknowledged. (Of course this isn't universal, but it is a style that can work depending on context and culture, and if it's not overused).