2 ms·
If that's what the manager wanted, they could have clarified as much in response to the author's first answer, or at least recognized there was a disconnect, an
by SilasX 4y ago
If that's what the manager wanted, they could have clarified as much in response to the author's first answer, or at least recognized there was a disconnect, and worked backwards from that to the point that their expectations were aligned. If they can't do that, then it's not clear their goals are well-defined enough to have a productive conversation on the matter in the first place, or that they are capable of correcting a misconception in the first place. That's a pretty low level of communication skill.
I can definitely imagine a manager who might (unhelpfully) say "Should we rewrite in React?" to mean "I want the team to move to React for reasons I can't [or don't feel I have to] rigorously justify, I expect you to defer to me here, and now is your chance to alert me of big gotchas that we'll have to handle in the process".
Such a manager has failed to communicate what they actually want, and unless they can "correct" the listener to the desired interpretation, they're going to be frustrated when said listener takes their surface level meaning seriously. It sounds like that's what the OP was doing here (as the listener).
- throwawaylinux 4y agoYeah they could have. I'm talking about responding to what they actually said though. If the manager was here I might also have some advice for them too, and it wouldn't involve telling them they're right and the other guy is wrong because he just doesn't understand you.
- SilasX 4y agoHe was responding to what the manager actually said; your advice was that he should have replied to one "correct" interpretation that was not explicit. But in any case, the author's response revealed what he understood the ask to be, allowing the manager to redirect. So if the interpretation is bad, the error is correctable. In contrast, the manager just seems to be flailing around, unable to clarify. That is not correctable. Only one of these people was ruining the interaction and thus needed advice.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago> He was responding to what the manager actually said; And that's what I was responding to. I'm not going to respond to the manager because he's not reading this. > your advice was that he should have replied to one "correct" interpretation that was not explicit. No that was not my advice. I gave an example of a response which acknowledges the question, provides an answer "no", and gives the opportunity for the manager to come back with something if they really did have some valid case it might help. All in fewer words flailing about with a bunch of questions that still didn't answer the original. My example remains valid even if the interpretation of the question and whether it matched the manager's intention was wrong, it still works. The correctness I'm talking about is not in the answer to the technical question, it is how to go about having a polite interaction with others, which is what the author's stated goal was and what they got wrong. > In contrast, the manager just seems to be flailing around, unable to clarify. That is not correctable. I don't know what you mean by "not correctable". Correcting the behavior corrects it. > Only one of these people was ruining the interaction and thus needed advice. No, both do, and the manager isn't here, hence my comment.