4 ms·

Also great for the opposite purpose: completely contradicting someone while keeping them on board

whatshisface 8y ago
Yes, and whenever the average person notices that you've pulled it on them they become completely enraged. People hate being managed.
- disishhsha 8y ago
  It depends on the person, and how you manage them. It’s embarassing to realize that you’re failing to communicate so badly that you require management. But if the manager handles it well, the managee has an opportunity to prevent that embarrassment from becoming public by changing their approach.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    >It’s embarassing to realize that you’re failing to communicate so badly that you require management. The other possibility in this situation is that the person doing the managing has just cast an unnecessary zero-confidence vote because of their own perceived superiority or excessive ego. Trying to manage people opens you up to some seriously negative social repercussions, unless those people are your kids.
wpietri 8y ago
I think this is a mistake. I think the better approach is to find a thing you both agree on and truly give a yes to that. E.g., if I disagree with somebody on the right way to solve a problem, I can at least say, "Yes, it's important we get this right." From there, in improv terms, I'd probably abandon my first offer and find a new offer that is closer to acceptable. E.g., "So let's do a minimal test of both approaches and see what kind of data we get." From there I'd again use the improv approach of not trying to control the flow, instead saying open to possibility. If the data goes my way, I can be gracious. If it hasn't, I have learned something, and can be generous with my praise. Either one heightens the chosen narrative direction of being on the same side.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  Yes, and I think we can extend this even further. Maybe it might be even better to find a thing you both agree on and truly give a yes to that. E.g., if I disagree with somebody on the right way to solve a problem, I can at least say, "Yes, it's important we get this right." From there, in improv terms, I'd probably abandon my first offer and find a new offer that is closer to acceptable. E.g., "So let's do a minimal test of both approaches and see what kind of data we get." From there I'd again use the improv approach of not trying to control the flow, instead saying open to possibility. If the data goes my way, I can be gracious. If it hasn't, I have learned something, and can be generous with my praise. Either one heightens the chosen narrative direction of being on the same side.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    In this case I think it was worth contradicting his deeply manipulative approach. Generally I'm for getting along. But when someone acts in ways that are abusive or manipulative, I think it's important to be clear how corrosive that is.

Yes, and whenever the average person notices that you've pulled it on them they become completely enraged. People hate being managed.

disishhsha 8y ago
It depends on the person, and how you manage them. It’s embarassing to realize that you’re failing to communicate so badly that you require management. But if the manager handles it well, the managee has an opportunity to prevent that embarrassment from becoming public by changing their approach.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >It’s embarassing to realize that you’re failing to communicate so badly that you require management. The other possibility in this situation is that the person doing the managing has just cast an unnecessary zero-confidence vote because of their own perceived superiority or excessive ego. Trying to manage people opens you up to some seriously negative social repercussions, unless those people are your kids.

wpietri 8y ago

I think this is a mistake. I think the better approach is to find a thing you both agree on and truly give a yes to that. E.g., if I disagree with somebody on the right way to solve a problem, I can at least say, "Yes, it's important we get this right." From there, in improv terms, I'd probably abandon my first offer and find a new offer that is closer to acceptable. E.g., "So let's do a minimal test of both approaches and see what kind of data we get." From there I'd again use the improv approach of not trying to control the flow, instead saying open to possibility. If the data goes my way, I can be gracious. If it hasn't, I have learned something, and can be generous with my praise. Either one heightens the chosen narrative direction of being on the same side.

ABCLAW 8y ago
Yes, and I think we can extend this even further. Maybe it might be even better to find a thing you both agree on and truly give a yes to that. E.g., if I disagree with somebody on the right way to solve a problem, I can at least say, "Yes, it's important we get this right." From there, in improv terms, I'd probably abandon my first offer and find a new offer that is closer to acceptable. E.g., "So let's do a minimal test of both approaches and see what kind of data we get." From there I'd again use the improv approach of not trying to control the flow, instead saying open to possibility. If the data goes my way, I can be gracious. If it hasn't, I have learned something, and can be generous with my praise. Either one heightens the chosen narrative direction of being on the same side.
- wpietri 8y ago
  In this case I think it was worth contradicting his deeply manipulative approach. Generally I'm for getting along. But when someone acts in ways that are abusive or manipulative, I think it's important to be clear how corrosive that is.