5 ms·

Another edit at 4:10pm EST* I am suggesting that your phrasing: "When I don't receive the paperwork by 10 AM, it means that the other team can't process it unt

Another edit at 4:10pm EST* I am suggesting that your phrasing: "When I don't receive the paperwork by 10 AM, it means that the other team can't process it until the next day." is indirect and worded so as to appear nicer than someone delivering a message, which is "you messed up". It's obvious to everyone involved that someone specific didn't deliver the paperwork. There is no need to obfuscate that fact by some vague abstraction. To me, that obfuscation is: 1). Implying that the guilty party is an idiot to make the speaker seem nicer. It's well known in marketing that when weak-minded people are given a reason (any reason) before a request, they are more likely to comply with a request*. However, "it means that the other team can't process it until the next day" isn't necessary - 90% of the time employees know things need to be done by deadlines. You are asking for them to deliver by the deadline, you don't need to rationalize. 2a). Indirect, potentially manipulative - e.g. accusing while ostensibly appearing not to be; an attempt to be nice while calling someone out. 2c). I will go even further on point 2a - when you ACCUSE clearly, you become responsible for your words. When I say "Hey Ben, your code is garbage, can you try to make it less garbage" I out myself as someone who is being critical. I out that I expect better. I take on the burden of criticizing as defined by Korolev, specifically: “If you do not agree — criticize; if you criticize — offer a solution/alternative; if you offer a solution — work on implementing it; if you implement it — bear the responsibility for your actions”. When you take a weak, passive, indirect voice, you accuse while trying to protect yourself from any consequences, since you can always say "woah, woah, I wasn't accusing you, I just didn't get my paperwork". To go even further with this - "Ben" missed the deadline, your goal is to communicate they missed the deadline. Why add all this other garbage? Since I realize that I am not making a strong enough point, I will include a quote that partially guides me here: "3. Active Voice: Use the active voice. The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive: 'I shall always remember my first visit to Harvard.' This is much better than: 'My first visit to Harvard will always be remembered by me.' The latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. This rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary." https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/files/ablconnect/files/howell_gov_40_other_rp_advice.pdf https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/files/ablconnect/files/howell... The ABC/military writing guides phrase it even better, but I am too lazy to look for the source PDFs. * There is solid research showing that "Hey, I am going to cut in line because I am late" is far more effective than "Hey, I am going to cut in line."

bitshiftfaced 4y ago
> and worded so as to appear nicer than someone delivering a message, which is "you messed up" You can debate whether "you messed up." When I speak about what I know I experienced by describing things that happened from my own point of view, I'm giving a far less controversial and debatable account of events. Perhaps both parties are comfortable with conflict, in which case there's no issue. But in my experience, I've found that most people feel extremely uncomfortable with something like "you messed up." > However, "it means that the other team can't process it until the next day" isn't necessary - 90% of the time employees know things need to be done by deadlines. You are asking for them to deliver by the deadline, you don't need to rationalize. I had mentioned how when giving information, you give "only what they reasonably may not know." In my example, I was thinking maybe they didn't know that 10am was the cutoff before there's a cost. If you know they already know, then yes I agree with you here. > an attempt to be nice while calling someone out. For many of us, our jobs require us to regularly coach others. I don't consider it as "calling someone out," and I see no reason to automatically consider it not "nice." It's a potentially uncomfortable interaction that we must do, so why not try to do it in an agreeable and effective way? > When you take a weak, passive, indirect voice, you accuse while trying to protect yourself from any consequences, since you can always say "woah, woah, I wasn't accusing you, I just didn't get my paperwork". > To go even further with this - "Ben" missed the deadline, your goal is to communicate they missed the deadline. Why add all this other garbage? I did in fact use the active voice in my example. Although, I would consider that avoiding the word "you" is a good reason to use the passive voice. That said, using the first person as suggested makes using the active voice much easier. People may use it only to protect themselves from consequences, and if so I'd agree when you describe this framing as "weak." We ought to have a good enough reason to give feedback to stand by it, and if not, then we need to be able to admit that. That isn't why I suggest it, though. The reason I use this kind of language is to make the criticism easier to hear and to avoid unnecessary defensiveness.
- throw1234651234 4y ago
  I think we still disagree a bit, but I can't quite define why. Regardless, thanks for the discussion!

bitshiftfaced 4y ago

> and worded so as to appear nicer than someone delivering a message, which is "you messed up" You can debate whether "you messed up." When I speak about what I know I experienced by describing things that happened from my own point of view, I'm giving a far less controversial and debatable account of events. Perhaps both parties are comfortable with conflict, in which case there's no issue. But in my experience, I've found that most people feel extremely uncomfortable with something like "you messed up." > However, "it means that the other team can't process it until the next day" isn't necessary - 90% of the time employees know things need to be done by deadlines. You are asking for them to deliver by the deadline, you don't need to rationalize. I had mentioned how when giving information, you give "only what they reasonably may not know." In my example, I was thinking maybe they didn't know that 10am was the cutoff before there's a cost. If you know they already know, then yes I agree with you here. > an attempt to be nice while calling someone out. For many of us, our jobs require us to regularly coach others. I don't consider it as "calling someone out," and I see no reason to automatically consider it not "nice." It's a potentially uncomfortable interaction that we must do, so why not try to do it in an agreeable and effective way? > When you take a weak, passive, indirect voice, you accuse while trying to protect yourself from any consequences, since you can always say "woah, woah, I wasn't accusing you, I just didn't get my paperwork". > To go even further with this - "Ben" missed the deadline, your goal is to communicate they missed the deadline. Why add all this other garbage? I did in fact use the active voice in my example. Although, I would consider that avoiding the word "you" is a good reason to use the passive voice. That said, using the first person as suggested makes using the active voice much easier. People may use it only to protect themselves from consequences, and if so I'd agree when you describe this framing as "weak." We ought to have a good enough reason to give feedback to stand by it, and if not, then we need to be able to admit that. That isn't why I suggest it, though. The reason I use this kind of language is to make the criticism easier to hear and to avoid unnecessary defensiveness.

throw1234651234 4y ago
I think we still disagree a bit, but I can't quite define why. Regardless, thanks for the discussion!