> This is dehumanizing, not polite. Arguing about what's polite will never cease, and is not useful. What is polite varies significantly from person to person

> This is dehumanizing, not polite. Arguing about what's polite will never cease, and is not useful. What is polite varies significantly from person to person and culture to culture. In my experience and observation of those who handle these problems well, the majority of them follow OP's advice. They do it very smoothly that I never noticed it until I was taught the pattern and started seeing it everywhere. What OP is saying is basically: 1. Focus on the action/problem and not the person. If there's a pattern, focus on the pattern, but have concrete examples ("You're frequently late" is not a concrete example). Using "You" here is fine. 2. Don't just focus on the action, but on the impact. Why was his behavior a problem? So what if he didn't complete the work by 10am? It is this that is phrased without "you", because you're trying to explain how it impacts you, not him. Very consistently I've found people who really dislike this advice are also very poor at articulating the impact. They'll refuse to speak of the impact it has on them, and will often make their case based on principles ("One should...", "It is expected...", "It is a societal norm...", "A good employee/professional should know...", "It should be obvious why submitting the work after the deadline is a problem, I shouldn't have to speak to it ..."). Sorry to trigger anyone, but such people are poor communicators. I should know - I was one of them. Changing my mindset from arguing on principles to arguing about impact was quite significant.