4 ms·

These techniques only really make sense if you want to make someone say something specific you already know, I strongly assume they even prevent actually findin

These techniques only really make sense if you want to make someone say something specific you already know, I strongly assume they even prevent actually finding out what someone really is thinking about or means.

xyzelement 5y ago
> These techniques only really make sense if you want to make someone say something specific you already know I mean, yes if you take it very literally - but why limit yourself? Here's an example of using the "one question one fact" technique for a non-hostile "interrogation" that's almost verbatim from last week: Colleague (super irate): everyone who works here is a fucking incompetent idiot! We need to fire half our team! Me: Was there a production problem last night? Colleague: Yes Me: did we roll out some bad logic? Colleague: Yes Me: Was the logic obviously bad? Colleague: Yes!!!! Me: was there a code review that missed it? Colleague: Yeah Me: who reviewed it? Colleague: Bob. Me: wasn't Bob the reviewer the last time something obvious broke? Colleague: Yeah... Me: we should help Bob become a stronger reviewer. Colleague: Agreed! Did I interrogate my colleague? Sort of. Was it hostile? Not at all. Did the one fact one question form help him get from "we should fire half the team" to "we need to help Bob"? Yup. Was that a vital recognition to make things better? Yup. Could we have gotten there so quickly if I didn't intentionally structure the conversation? Probably not.
- ljm 5y ago
  This kind of works okay when the other person is agreeing to being coached, but sometimes you want to express something without it being something to be immediately fixed. Because it sounds like you're not hearing the frustration, and skipping a few steps ahead. It's great when someone wants it, but do it often enough or by default and people will start cutting you out of the loop. Because it's genuinely exhausting. I've been on both sides of this, especially when I did coaching training and then thought I could use it for everyone.
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    >> This kind of works okay when the other person is agreeing to being coached This is a great point and totally agree. It's a little frustrating to have to spell out the entire context of the relationship in this case but people are for some reason eager to assume a context that puts the conversation in the worst possible light rather than seeing "oh yeah ok sometimes there's room for that kind of thing" and obviously you wield the tool with judgement. One thing I really do appreciate is that some workplaces seem more geared for coaching and feedback than others. I haven't worked at Amazon for example but I understand that one of the reasons it's considered a hard place to work is that it's "not OK" to not want to improve and grow, so you give implicit consent to be coached by working there (obviously there's still room for empathy and handing it well) whereas other organizations (Google) seem to prioritize in-the-moment happiness so there's potential to be missing out on vital feedback for years - I actually asked about this a lot in my interviews there.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kayodelycaon 5y ago
  Here’s what I’m seeing, a coworker makes a statement out of frustration and your decision is to “correct” them. This escalates things because your trying to hammer your point of view through. You’re addressing the wrong problem. They are frustrated at the situation, not suggesting a course of action. Acknowledge their feelings (because you probably have the same frustration). Then you can work the conversation around on how to fix the problem. Maybe they see something you don’t. But you’ll never know that with your example.
  - rackjack 5y ago
    Yeah... deposition seems to be for constructing an argument or proving a position. If you don't have a position to prove, I think it's better to work through the emotions and issues a colleague is facing so work can be done more smoothly, since they probably know something you don't.
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    > Here’s what I’m seeing, a coworker makes a statement out of frustration and your decision is to “correct” them. I get the "make sure they are OK" angle - totally the go-to if someone is seriously distraught or vulnerable. This was a manager annoyed from perceiving themselves drowning in a sea of incompetence. Helping him go from that to "this is something I can help my team with" was empowering to him as is obvious in the actual example. You really can't imagine a situation where simply helping someone navigate their own understanding is helpful?
    - kayodelycaon 5y ago
      Thank you for checking out my website. I’m quite proud of it. :) While I am an advocate for mental health now, I’ve been doing everything I talked about for the last decade. Maybe two if you include what I picked up from my parents doing marriage counseling. > You really can't imagine a situation where simply helping someone navigate their own understanding is helpful? Here’s my way to address that: “Yeah. That last deployment was rough. I’m sick and tired of this happening too. What we are doing isn’t effective. I’ve been thinking about this and I have a few ideas. When would be a good time to discuss? I’m free now or we could talk after lunch.” Now I can have a conversation with someone willing to look at solutions instead of venting.
- cuf7i3vtcu 5y ago
  You could also have just let your colleague vent and gotten the same basic result unless your colleague is the one in charge of hiring/firing. Personally, you sound tedious to talk with.

xyzelement 5y ago

> These techniques only really make sense if you want to make someone say something specific you already know I mean, yes if you take it very literally - but why limit yourself? Here's an example of using the "one question one fact" technique for a non-hostile "interrogation" that's almost verbatim from last week: Colleague (super irate): everyone who works here is a fucking incompetent idiot! We need to fire half our team! Me: Was there a production problem last night? Colleague: Yes Me: did we roll out some bad logic? Colleague: Yes Me: Was the logic obviously bad? Colleague: Yes!!!! Me: was there a code review that missed it? Colleague: Yeah Me: who reviewed it? Colleague: Bob. Me: wasn't Bob the reviewer the last time something obvious broke? Colleague: Yeah... Me: we should help Bob become a stronger reviewer. Colleague: Agreed! Did I interrogate my colleague? Sort of. Was it hostile? Not at all. Did the one fact one question form help him get from "we should fire half the team" to "we need to help Bob"? Yup. Was that a vital recognition to make things better? Yup. Could we have gotten there so quickly if I didn't intentionally structure the conversation? Probably not.

ljm 5y ago
This kind of works okay when the other person is agreeing to being coached, but sometimes you want to express something without it being something to be immediately fixed. Because it sounds like you're not hearing the frustration, and skipping a few steps ahead. It's great when someone wants it, but do it often enough or by default and people will start cutting you out of the loop. Because it's genuinely exhausting. I've been on both sides of this, especially when I did coaching training and then thought I could use it for everyone.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  >> This kind of works okay when the other person is agreeing to being coached This is a great point and totally agree. It's a little frustrating to have to spell out the entire context of the relationship in this case but people are for some reason eager to assume a context that puts the conversation in the worst possible light rather than seeing "oh yeah ok sometimes there's room for that kind of thing" and obviously you wield the tool with judgement. One thing I really do appreciate is that some workplaces seem more geared for coaching and feedback than others. I haven't worked at Amazon for example but I understand that one of the reasons it's considered a hard place to work is that it's "not OK" to not want to improve and grow, so you give implicit consent to be coached by working there (obviously there's still room for empathy and handing it well) whereas other organizations (Google) seem to prioritize in-the-moment happiness so there's potential to be missing out on vital feedback for years - I actually asked about this a lot in my interviews there.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kayodelycaon 5y ago
Here’s what I’m seeing, a coworker makes a statement out of frustration and your decision is to “correct” them. This escalates things because your trying to hammer your point of view through. You’re addressing the wrong problem. They are frustrated at the situation, not suggesting a course of action. Acknowledge their feelings (because you probably have the same frustration). Then you can work the conversation around on how to fix the problem. Maybe they see something you don’t. But you’ll never know that with your example.
- rackjack 5y ago
  Yeah... deposition seems to be for constructing an argument or proving a position. If you don't have a position to prove, I think it's better to work through the emotions and issues a colleague is facing so work can be done more smoothly, since they probably know something you don't.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  > Here’s what I’m seeing, a coworker makes a statement out of frustration and your decision is to “correct” them. I get the "make sure they are OK" angle - totally the go-to if someone is seriously distraught or vulnerable. This was a manager annoyed from perceiving themselves drowning in a sea of incompetence. Helping him go from that to "this is something I can help my team with" was empowering to him as is obvious in the actual example. You really can't imagine a situation where simply helping someone navigate their own understanding is helpful?
  - kayodelycaon 5y ago
    Thank you for checking out my website. I’m quite proud of it. :) While I am an advocate for mental health now, I’ve been doing everything I talked about for the last decade. Maybe two if you include what I picked up from my parents doing marriage counseling. > You really can't imagine a situation where simply helping someone navigate their own understanding is helpful? Here’s my way to address that: “Yeah. That last deployment was rough. I’m sick and tired of this happening too. What we are doing isn’t effective. I’ve been thinking about this and I have a few ideas. When would be a good time to discuss? I’m free now or we could talk after lunch.” Now I can have a conversation with someone willing to look at solutions instead of venting.
cuf7i3vtcu 5y ago
You could also have just let your colleague vent and gotten the same basic result unless your colleague is the one in charge of hiring/firing. Personally, you sound tedious to talk with.