4 ms·

That is a good point that I didn't see in my quick scan of the 44 rules... If you have a target audience, give a specific message to only that target audience.

by gvb 8y ago

That is a good point that I didn't see in my quick scan of the 44 rules... If you have a target audience, give a specific message to only that target audience. Do not give the message to a larger group than the target audience. I've seen (and been guilty of) giving a vague, non-specific message to "everybody" when only one or two people were the actual target of the message. This causes incredible problems with those in the audience that are not the target of the message. Ironically, the one or two people that are the problem typically remain oblivious to the fact that they were the target of the message.

mistersquid 8y ago
If the employee pool is larger than 20-30 but there are only "one or two people [who] were the actual target of the message", the problem might be bigger than those one or two employees. Unless (or even if) those "one or two" are outright sabotaging team effort or egregiously incompetent, management delivering a vague message to everyone suggests broader problem in the company. The problem may not strictly be a managerial one. For example, the team and its managers may be driven by decreasing revenue, changing market, new legislation, etc. In any case, it's hard to imagine a situation where "one or two" non-malicious mediocre employees would merit a broad message to the entire team. EDIT: Change "an" to "a".
- alias_neo 8y ago
  You're close to the truth in the second paragraph there. I don't want to go into too much detail, the company is doing well now (I believe) and I harbor no ill-will. There were issues throughout the ranks, the company grew quickly and had issues adapting. I think the exodus gave them an opportunity to begin again without those that had been jaded by experience.
alias_neo 8y ago
Indeed. In some cases the opposite was done; the message was given out as a whole, and some were told off-the-record that it didn't include them, this is another problematic approach. Clearly this is how I became aware of the situation.

by gvb 8y ago

mistersquid 8y ago

If the employee pool is larger than 20-30 but there are only "one or two people [who] were the actual target of the message", the problem might be bigger than those one or two employees. Unless (or even if) those "one or two" are outright sabotaging team effort or egregiously incompetent, management delivering a vague message to everyone suggests broader problem in the company. The problem may not strictly be a managerial one. For example, the team and its managers may be driven by decreasing revenue, changing market, new legislation, etc. In any case, it's hard to imagine a situation where "one or two" non-malicious mediocre employees would merit a broad message to the entire team. EDIT: Change "an" to "a".

alias_neo 8y ago
You're close to the truth in the second paragraph there. I don't want to go into too much detail, the company is doing well now (I believe) and I harbor no ill-will. There were issues throughout the ranks, the company grew quickly and had issues adapting. I think the exodus gave them an opportunity to begin again without those that had been jaded by experience.

alias_neo 8y ago

Indeed. In some cases the opposite was done; the message was given out as a whole, and some were told off-the-record that it didn't include them, this is another problematic approach. Clearly this is how I became aware of the situation.