3 ms·

This matches my experience exactly. So many times people, especially technical people, have something to say, some information to convey, and almost arbitraril

This matches my experience exactly. So many times people, especially technical people, have something to say, some information to convey, and almost arbitrarily many ways to say it. They then, from among those arbitrarily many ways, fail to exercise any judgement as to which is going to achieve secondary goals of improving working relationships, making people feel good, getting people on-side, and generally improving the working atmosphere. Often they think that the information is enough, and how you say it is irrelevant. Or perhaps, more accurately, they simply don't realise that there really is a choice to make, and it's an important one. How you say something can make the message more impactful, more effective, and additionally, get people working with you to make things better, instead of resenting you and potentially sabotaging your work. http://www.penzba.co.uk/SoothSayer.html http://www.penzba.co.uk/SoothSayer.html

wladimir 16y ago
Pretty moot argument. If technical people spent a significant part of their time on how to bring a message instead of the content of the message, they would hardly be technical people. You need smart minds to be doing what they are good at. It's pretty obvious why different people have different tasks, you wouldn't let a person from PR do a technical design, and you wouldn't let someone from technical design do the PR. Both would probably have ackward results...
- davidmathers 16y ago
  Reductio ad absurdum.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  And I wouldn't let someone be a manager or technical people unless they also had some technical skills, and technical people without the ability to work well with other people usually don't get very far. There are honorable exceptions, but I've learned never to rely on being one of the exceptional cases. By all means, concentrate on your technical skills and your technical skills alone, but understand the decision you're making. I've found that a small amount of time understanding business, negotiation, psychology and personal interaction has been enormously beneficial. If you choose not to learn from my experience, that's your choice.
  - wladimir 16y ago
    Don't get me wrong -- I do see the importance of those things. But I also recognize they are a science in themselves. To get involved with that too much is a kind of slippery slope, which detracts from the main focus. A lot of people make a living of being obsessed about how things look and sound, the outward appearance. I choose to not be one of those people.
    - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
      Much can be gained from a very small amount of effort. Like learning to say "Hello", "Goodbye", "Please" and "Thank you" in the language of the country you visit, the returns are disproportionate to the effort. It's not about being obsessed by how things look and sound, it's about realising there's a choice, and making the choice that makes it easy for the other person to join your side. There are a few small and simple "tricks" and techniques that can make a world of difference. "Not bothering" is also a choice. I just don't think it's a good one. Investing a small amount of time is better. Find a good balance.
- TheSOB88 16y ago
  The following sentence shall have the property of verbal irony. You spelled awkward wrong, asshat.
- raganwald 16y ago
  If technical people spent a significant part of their time on how to bring a message instead of the content of the message, they would hardly be technical people. You need smart minds to be doing what they are good at. You are presenting a dichotomy, that technical people can be smart or empathic but not both. Citation, please? I am keenly interested in learning why smart minds cannot be good at "what they are good at" if they take the time to improve their empathy and communication skills.
wisty 16y ago
The article doesn't quite make that point. You can say one thing (you didn't account for time, money and staffing), or another (great plan, I hope we can find the time, money, and staff), and get the same strategic result. What you don't do is notify people of the root cause - the manager who thinks that time, money, and staff don't need to be accounted for. The question is - what are your goals? Making the presenter look bad is only a good idea if you are in a culture where all bad ideas are attacked (hopefully without cramping innovation), or you are pretty sure the presenter needs to be taught a lesson. But otherwise, it's better to achieve one goal without the other.

wladimir 16y ago

Pretty moot argument. If technical people spent a significant part of their time on how to bring a message instead of the content of the message, they would hardly be technical people. You need smart minds to be doing what they are good at. It's pretty obvious why different people have different tasks, you wouldn't let a person from PR do a technical design, and you wouldn't let someone from technical design do the PR. Both would probably have ackward results...

davidmathers 16y ago
Reductio ad absurdum.
RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
And I wouldn't let someone be a manager or technical people unless they also had some technical skills, and technical people without the ability to work well with other people usually don't get very far. There are honorable exceptions, but I've learned never to rely on being one of the exceptional cases. By all means, concentrate on your technical skills and your technical skills alone, but understand the decision you're making. I've found that a small amount of time understanding business, negotiation, psychology and personal interaction has been enormously beneficial. If you choose not to learn from my experience, that's your choice.
- wladimir 16y ago
  Don't get me wrong -- I do see the importance of those things. But I also recognize they are a science in themselves. To get involved with that too much is a kind of slippery slope, which detracts from the main focus. A lot of people make a living of being obsessed about how things look and sound, the outward appearance. I choose to not be one of those people.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
    Much can be gained from a very small amount of effort. Like learning to say "Hello", "Goodbye", "Please" and "Thank you" in the language of the country you visit, the returns are disproportionate to the effort. It's not about being obsessed by how things look and sound, it's about realising there's a choice, and making the choice that makes it easy for the other person to join your side. There are a few small and simple "tricks" and techniques that can make a world of difference. "Not bothering" is also a choice. I just don't think it's a good one. Investing a small amount of time is better. Find a good balance.
TheSOB88 16y ago
The following sentence shall have the property of verbal irony. You spelled awkward wrong, asshat.
raganwald 16y ago
If technical people spent a significant part of their time on how to bring a message instead of the content of the message, they would hardly be technical people. You need smart minds to be doing what they are good at. You are presenting a dichotomy, that technical people can be smart or empathic but not both. Citation, please? I am keenly interested in learning why smart minds cannot be good at "what they are good at" if they take the time to improve their empathy and communication skills.

wisty 16y ago

The article doesn't quite make that point. You can say one thing (you didn't account for time, money and staffing), or another (great plan, I hope we can find the time, money, and staff), and get the same strategic result. What you don't do is notify people of the root cause - the manager who thinks that time, money, and staff don't need to be accounted for. The question is - what are your goals? Making the presenter look bad is only a good idea if you are in a culture where all bad ideas are attacked (hopefully without cramping innovation), or you are pretty sure the presenter needs to be taught a lesson. But otherwise, it's better to achieve one goal without the other.