4 ms·
>> we will no longer need some of the roles on the late stage investing team > I hate this passive voice. It's active voice, no? How is it different than we
by YetAnotherNick 4y ago
>> we will no longer need some of the roles on the late stage investing team
> I hate this passive voice.
It's active voice, no? How is it different than we fired, except that firing sounds more tied employee performance, no longer needed more seems like employer fault.
- yencabulator 4y ago"Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." vs something like "We decided to fire 17 teammates due to this."
- polio 4y agoEven "teammates" is unnecessarily euphemistic. "We laid off 17 members of our staff" works just fine.
- yencabulator 4y agoI didn't edit that part as it felt like "teammates" was admitting a greater feeling of guilt, or something.
- bradrn 4y ago> It's active voice, no? Yes, it is — at least in the first sentence. > How is it different than we fired, except that firing sounds more tied employee performance, no longer needed more seems like employer fault. I think this is GP’s issue with the phrasing here. Passive or not, it sounds like it’s deflecting focus away from something — as they said, ‘It implies there was nothing that could be done, that this was just a force of nature’.
- froh 4y ago"they were impacted", the passive voice, has the actor eliminated. who impacted? yc. yc leadership made a decision which impacted 17 people. that's active voice.