5 ms·

A meta observation about the replies: - Group 1 : These alternatives suggestions are great! - Group 2 : These alternatives sound like corporate-drone-speak th

by jasode 4y ago

A meta observation about the replies: - Group 1 : These alternatives suggestions are great! - Group 2 : These alternatives sound like corporate-drone-speak that are passive-aggressive and condescending. The differences in perception seems like a unintended Rorschach Test. The differing interpretations looks like a worthy candidate for somebody's PhD psych research paper. Conclusion: Projecting an intended tone to a universal audience is hard. Possibly unresolvable.

ryandrake 4y ago
I mean, it's both: They are all great (I've used many of them in the past) AND it's stupid that we have to use polite euphemistic speech at work! I wish I could tell people at work "Check your goddamn E-mail, this is the third time I've asked you to do your job!" or "Can you stop talking? You're derailing this fucking meeting!" but we can't if we expect our careers to go anywhere besides the basement. I think another awesome translator would be the reverse: When someone tells you something in corporate-drone-speak that sounds CorporateUpbeat, help me to figure out what it's really saying. Is this person really happy, or are they seething with rage at something I did, and can't articulate their anger in a work setting without coating it with passive aggressive euphemisms?
- mattcwilson 4y ago
  If someone needed to tell you to check your email, or stop interrupting the meeting, how would you want them to do it? How would you want to have others see you being told that?
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    "Hey, [name], could you check your E-mail? Your TPS report was due yesterday!" I mean, it's not offensive, and if I did screw up, I would want to know clearly and directly that I screwed up. I've worked in a blue collar setting where people were direct and unambiguous. "You need to put the wrench back after you're done using it." is much better than "I would like to encourage you to address the speed at which you submit your TPS reports, given our well understood weekly cadence."
- blablabla123 4y ago
  But generally I think that's where a lot of conflict in workplaces (and not only there) comes from. People have different preferences for talking, also because of having different goals, speaking habits and interests. Telling someone who speaks very diplomatically to read their goddamn email might come off intimidating while another person might just think this is really important. Or vice-versa passive aggressive/condescending. Both sides knowing this would already help a lot. IMHO this would even make frameworks like non-violent communication obsolete. People trying to bend their way of talking too much is definitely not fun
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    So almost like a training on different metalanguages we use? Not sure if that's the right word for it, maybe linguistic styles? I hesitate to use "communication styles" as I don't think it gets to the core language part of it, but maybe communication styles. EDIT: maybe "emotional communication"? I ask because I work in this space and have avoided going into corporate spaces after quitting consulting about 10 years ago and am curious to dive back in. Is there a term for it that resonates more with you?
    - blablabla123 4y ago
      Yeah metalanguages sounds good. I was also thinking of tongue or jargon, but metalanguages seems less ambiguous/more polished (not a native speaker anyway) Ah cool, that's definitely a useful job. In my last adventure in the corporate space as engineer that was definitely a topic. (To answer the edit: I think this emotional communication reminds me so much of EQ and all this. Dealing directly on the language layer with this seems more next level I would say)
      - jimkleiber 4y ago
        Ahh thank you! Emotional metalanguage? Haha probably too much. EDIT: "emotional" is probably too taboo for most workplaces currently. However I hope in the future we realize just how integral emotion is to communication—it's there whether we want to admit it or not.

by jasode 4y ago

ryandrake 4y ago

I mean, it's both: They are all great (I've used many of them in the past) AND it's stupid that we have to use polite euphemistic speech at work! I wish I could tell people at work "Check your goddamn E-mail, this is the third time I've asked you to do your job!" or "Can you stop talking? You're derailing this fucking meeting!" but we can't if we expect our careers to go anywhere besides the basement. I think another awesome translator would be the reverse: When someone tells you something in corporate-drone-speak that sounds CorporateUpbeat, help me to figure out what it's really saying. Is this person really happy, or are they seething with rage at something I did, and can't articulate their anger in a work setting without coating it with passive aggressive euphemisms?

mattcwilson 4y ago
If someone needed to tell you to check your email, or stop interrupting the meeting, how would you want them to do it? How would you want to have others see you being told that?
- ryandrake 4y ago
  "Hey, [name], could you check your E-mail? Your TPS report was due yesterday!" I mean, it's not offensive, and if I did screw up, I would want to know clearly and directly that I screwed up. I've worked in a blue collar setting where people were direct and unambiguous. "You need to put the wrench back after you're done using it." is much better than "I would like to encourage you to address the speed at which you submit your TPS reports, given our well understood weekly cadence."
blablabla123 4y ago
But generally I think that's where a lot of conflict in workplaces (and not only there) comes from. People have different preferences for talking, also because of having different goals, speaking habits and interests. Telling someone who speaks very diplomatically to read their goddamn email might come off intimidating while another person might just think this is really important. Or vice-versa passive aggressive/condescending. Both sides knowing this would already help a lot. IMHO this would even make frameworks like non-violent communication obsolete. People trying to bend their way of talking too much is definitely not fun
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  So almost like a training on different metalanguages we use? Not sure if that's the right word for it, maybe linguistic styles? I hesitate to use "communication styles" as I don't think it gets to the core language part of it, but maybe communication styles. EDIT: maybe "emotional communication"? I ask because I work in this space and have avoided going into corporate spaces after quitting consulting about 10 years ago and am curious to dive back in. Is there a term for it that resonates more with you?
  - blablabla123 4y ago
    Yeah metalanguages sounds good. I was also thinking of tongue or jargon, but metalanguages seems less ambiguous/more polished (not a native speaker anyway) Ah cool, that's definitely a useful job. In my last adventure in the corporate space as engineer that was definitely a topic. (To answer the edit: I think this emotional communication reminds me so much of EQ and all this. Dealing directly on the language layer with this seems more next level I would say)
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
      Ahh thank you! Emotional metalanguage? Haha probably too much. EDIT: "emotional" is probably too taboo for most workplaces currently. However I hope in the future we realize just how integral emotion is to communication—it's there whether we want to admit it or not.