16 ms·

How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole

629 points by zdw 3y ago

tamimio 3y ago
From my experience communication isn’t the problem, the root cause is always power struggle, directly or indirectly, and everything else follows, surprisingly it is the case also between nations throughout history.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
glonq 3y ago
How timely. My boss just crucified a co-worker today in our meeting and I think something like this could help mend things. Yes, my boss never heard of "praise in public criticize in private". Welcome to working with a hot-blooded eastern european
- gottorf 3y ago
  Management by perkele!
  - yread 3y ago
    Is Finland now Eastern Europe? More like Kurwa management.
    - yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
      Poland is typically regarded as Central Europe.
      - rcbdev 3y ago
        By whom? Czechs (wholly western to Poland) are always called "Eastern Europeans" in contemporary media and or any place I have ever worked before.
        yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
        By just about everyone in Poland, at least. Historically, “Eastern Europe” has been used as more of a derogatory signifier in places where it’s culturally acceptable to make jokes at the expense of Slavs, like in Germany or USA. Let’s not forget that Vienna is actually geographically further East than Prague, though I doubt many Austrians would be comfortable considering themselves Eastern European. Poland is pretty squarely in the middle of Europe by a number of metrics. If we’re talking about time zone, Poland uses Central European [Summer] Time. If we’re talking geographically, most of the claimants to the geographical midpoint of Europe are actually East of Poland. If we’re talking politically, then the midpoint of the European Union is said to be in Würzburg, which is only 470km South-West from the border with Poland. And we can hardly say that anything East of Würzburg is Eastern Europe, since that would include all of Austria.
        cf141q5325 3y ago
        >Historically, “Eastern Europe” has been used as more of a derogatory signifier in places where it’s culturally acceptable to make jokes at the expense of Slavs, like in Germany or USA. I am calling bullshit. It simply referenced the Soviet zone. Eastern Europe was everything behind the iron curtain, including Eastern Germany. Everything else was Western Europe, including countries in the North and South of Europe. edit: Its also worth mentioning that framing that geopolitical conflict as racist is highly oversimplistic and counterproductive. The only upside i can think of is signaling and the stakes are far too high for such selfish endeavors. Stuff is just complicated and geopolitical conflicts even more so.
        yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
        …And you're an authority on this topic are you?
      - _0ffh 3y ago
        Depends if you go for geographical location or the iron curtain east/west distinction, which is still used by many and culturally relevant.
        yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
        Just because it’s used, doesn’t make it valid. I don’t think the historical Iron Curtain is a useful means by which to make that distinction today. Unless you’re willing to proclaim to Berliners that you love being in Berlin despite it being in Eastern Europe. I think you would raise some eyebrows. Or fists.
        cf141q5325 3y ago
        You can make the exact same argument for Russia and Turkey being European. This kind of vocabulary works through consensus about attached meaning. Usage determines validity. You can tell by there being no agreed upon geographic line on a map going through countries.
- breakingwalls 3y ago
  Very timely for me as well, have been having tough time with my partner especially about how unfriendly and critical I sound, even though my intentions are for general improvement and well being around home.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - TylerE 3y ago
    There is little less welcome than unsolicited "advice", especially coming from the person and place that are supposed to be the refuge from all the shit going on in the world.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      "Hey, are you open to feedback?" works wonders. Also be prepared for "no". This does require someone who's able to say no though, which isn't a given.
    - awb 3y ago
      A long-term partner probably knows you better than anyone. No one likes getting called out on their stuff, if you want to grow as a person or as a couple you’re going to move past that initial discomfort, reflect on it and then decide if it’s valid enough feedback to try to integrate it.
- belval 3y ago
  I just finished reading the culture map (an HN recommendation!) and it was actually very eye opening. This is not to excuse bad behaviour in the workplace, but it's entirely possible that depending on where he comes from in eastern europe that's just how tough feedback is given and he didn't perceive it as a "crucifiction".
  - function_seven 3y ago
    I felt slighted once when a former CEO of mine didn't lambast me on our weekly call. I took it to mean that I wasn't important enough to get the dressing down he was known for. (I mean, I was still relieved to avoid it! Just thought it was funny to feel disrespected because I got gentle treatment :)
- andrei_says_ 3y ago
  Hot blooded Eastern Europeans can learn, too. You do know the difference and concept. If it’s safe, educate.
  - glonq 3y ago
    It is not particularly safe. My boss has several positive attributes, but emotional intelligence is not one of them.
- vasco 3y ago
  Nobody should be crucified either in public or in private. But correcting mistakes and making it explicit to the whole team what the problem was and how we'll minimize the chances of reocurring is best done in front of the team. Everyone learns together, and most importantly, they see how you react to mistakes. They won't be afraid to talk about their mistakes if they see your normal reaction. It'll also feel less bad because now everyone is aware that everyone makes one every once in a while. Create a culture where nothing is a personal attack and performance is just what it is, instead of something to be ashamed of. In school all the kids get all their grades publicly, you don't get public grades if you do good and private grades if you do bad on the exam. And somehow we're all here and understood that it was what it was. The problem is that it was done as a "crucification". Shouting and blaming and being an ass to someone are wrong to do either in private or in public.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > Nobody should be crucified either in public or in private. Serious reprimands need to happen in private. We can use euphemisms or severe language, but sometimes people need to be told, "You fouled up, you were careless, you were indiscriminate, and your reckless mistake cost the company more money than you make in a year, which may cost someone ELSE their job because of budget cuts." Always remember that your foul-ups could cost someone their life or their livelihood. This isn't kindergarten. Adults need to be told honestly about the damage they caused.
  - IggleSniggle 3y ago
    Huh. In my schooling experience, all grades were quite private unless someone shared!
    - vasco 3y ago
      Woah! I just assumed this is how it worked everywhere. I might just need to re-think my whole stance and look this up. Thanks for sharing, I never thought to question it.
  - zestyping 3y ago
    The following case is interesting because it might fall in the space between what various folks on this thread consider acceptable. An engineer on my team once merged a change that created a security vulnerability, without review. We didn't have any real users on prod yet, and the potential impact was small. But I was still angry because I had given explicit instructions (speaking as the tech lead and the one with the most security experience) that all changes had to go through code review for security issues. I responded with an email message that was visible to the whole team (about 5 people). I knew it would sting, but I also wanted everyone to know that this was an important line not to cross, because at some point in the near future we did hope to have real users. I wrote, approximately, "You merged this change without review, and that's not okay. I explicitly told you not to do that. As a result, we now have a security vulnerability. Don't ever do that again." I am paraphrasing from memory, but the tone was not too far off from this: stern, direct criticism without personal attack. At the time, I held myself to a simple standard of communication: stating facts and criticising actions (even bluntly) was acceptable; any criticism of personal attributes was unacceptable. The engineer in question was very hurt and angry with me, and our working relationship was difficult for many weeks after that. Was I the asshole here? What's your standard of communication, and what would you do, from the point of view of the tech lead or as the engineer?
- balfirevic 3y ago
  > Welcome to working with a hot-blooded eastern european It's funny, one other commenter pointed out how you won't get far in Eastern Europe without saying "please" and "thank you" a lot. I'm from there and it's true - we have both rude and polite people!
  - watwut 3y ago
    The same person criticizing you can also use please and thank you. There is zero dichotomy between the two.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
morley 3y ago
This is such a great blog post. I wish I had read this ten years ago.
apsurd 3y ago
Great read. Another helpful cue I give myself is "The opt-in". Always give your partner the chance to opt-in to the conversation. Opt-ins can be subtle or explicit relative to the heaviness. Opt-in can be a simple pause allowing the other person to volley back. A chance to follow up with questions, contribute, or change the subject heh. TONS of people don't do this. myself included. Take a beat. For hard conversations, explicitly ask them if they are are ok talking about X, or if they have time: "hey I wanted to talk about the fight last night, do you have time now?"
- kevinmchugh 3y ago
  I learned this from The Effective Manager. When giving feedback you always ask if the person is open to it. It gives them the chance to avoid/delay if it's a bad day, and makes them bought in.
datadrivenangel 3y ago
This is good advice. :) I'm not sure how much it helps when the low trust is one sided.
OJFord 3y ago
I thought I was going to like this, but other than 'Give people the opening to do better' section, the advised interactions seem not great to me? e.g. I want to say something, but I am having a hard time with it. I have something to say, but I don’t know how you’ll take it. I need to tell you something and I am anxious about your reaction. are (1) making me anxious while I wait for you to say whatever it is; (2) absolving you of any responsibility for what it is or how I feel about it before I even know what it is? … or check in afterwards. so now you've given me bad news, poor feedback, whatever - and I have to make you feel better about it?
- ketzo 3y ago
  In theory, I'm with you; in practicality, I have always found that literally just a one-sentence lead-in -- even if it's not perfect -- goes a long way towards a better conversation. I kind agree with you on your reading of the subtexts, here, but in a conversation, I just don't think these sentiments come off that way. Rather, we tend to interpret them as noise that lets the other person know that a difficult topic is coming, instead of just dunking them in head first. "Hey, I wanted to let you know about some bad news. one-breath pause <bad news here>" has always worked better for me, as both the deliverer and the recipient, than "Hey, <bad news>." Basically what I'm saying is that you could definitely read into these suggested phrases, as you have; but they play out way differently in a real-life conversation.
- tptacek 3y ago
  I unreservedly love this article and found a lot of it valuable despite decades of career experience stepping in it with coworkers (and vice versa). But I agree with you about up-front acknowledgements of hard conversations. They're the workplace equivalent of "we need to talk". I'm an anxious person by nature, so "we need to talk" is about the most painful thing you can say to me: my mind will immediately project out the worst possible case, and the relief I get when your real issue is nowhere nearly that bad isn't going to fully absorb the cortisol the opening generates for me. Fortunately, the article anticipates this, and you've misread it a bit. Notice the headline for the follow-up is "OR check in afterwards", not "AND check in afterwards". Checking in afterwards is the right alternative when you're working with me. It might not be with other people. And, the straightforward answer to the question your comment asks: yes. Yes, you have to make them feel better about it. When you're working on a team, part of your responsibility as a team member is to keep relationships working smoothly. To put it in Reddit parlance: if someone steps in it with you, and then asks you to make them feel better about it afterwards, and you get irritated about the check-in: YTA. Not ESH: YTA. They did the right thing by (1) being concerned they handled the initial interaction poorly and (2) following up on it to clear the air. You'd have punished them for doing the right thing, which is worse than handling the initial interaction poorly!
wenc 3y ago
I like that this is battle tested advice derived from a real context (between the author and co founder). There are tons of articles on LinkedIn written by people who don’t have lived experience in what they’re writing about so they read like a book summary. Empiricists on the other hand will preside test ideas. The best teacher is reality.
dilyevsky 3y ago
From experience CC advice and other similar corp bs techniques are like “self defense class” techniques of communication meaning they only work if the other party is well meaning and actively cooperating. Which is to say they rarely work even if properly executed.
- TylerE 3y ago
  Sort of like how MMA showed that most of the traditional martial arts aren't actually good except as exercise.
  - tanjtanjtanj 3y ago
    MMA showed everyone that shielding yourself with the back of your head is a great tactic in a sport where you can't strike the back of someone's head.
- tptacek 3y ago
  If your team is mostly comprised of people operating in bad faith, no advice (other than "disband") is going to help you. The premise of this article is that you have a team operating in good faith, but with fragile trust, which is a much more common problem in startups than a team of vipers.
  - dilyevsky 3y ago
    That’s certainly true but these techniques also dont work on people who just don’t care rather than being outright malicious and there seems to be a lot more of those
    - tptacek 3y ago
      That's true. It's a good point. They also don't work on dogs, so you should keep that in mind if your team is largely canine in nature.
      - 3y ago
nelsondev 3y ago
I wish this article wasn’t helpful. But I find myself using these tactics around thin-skinned colleagues, who need little pats on the head.
- tptacek 3y ago
  We're all thin-skinned at times, which is why this article's take is so valuable, and it's helpful to just be careful with everybody, or at least have a set of tools ready to deploy if you manage to step in it, or someone manages to step in it with you.
- xen2xen1 3y ago
  Gen Z?
- awb 3y ago
  If you’re approaching someone and have judgmental thoughts about them, it’s probably leaking out through body language, tone or other social cues, causing you to have to be extra careful to compensate. If you don’t like having to use these techniques, respect and appreciation also goes a long way. Instead of judging them as “thin-skinned colleagues who need little pats on the head”, maybe try getting to know them and how their childhood might have played a role, or how their personality benefits them or the community in certain ways. For example, maybe you see it as a chance to practice gratitude, which is a virtue in many cultures.
testfoobar 3y ago
This is all well and good advice. But sometimes you have to work with people who demonstrate traits of Narcissism Personality Disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder. E.g. someone who never accepts responsibility or someone frequently demonstrating emotional lability. I am not sure the best course of action in these situations.
- llamaLord 3y ago
  Yeah I think it's important to note that these techniques are for situations where trust has broken down due to something external, not due to a fundamental issue with one of the people involved. This stuff will never help with narcissistic ass holes.
  - ransackdev 3y ago
    Narcissist seems to be a label that’s often applied to confident people who are direct in what they say, and because they know that what they are saying is correct (hence the confidence), they tend to be pretty inflexible on any suggested alternatives. The other parties naturally feel unheard or steamrolled over and end up calling the person a narcissistic asshole, but in my personal experience, that’s hardly ever actually the case, or at the very least, there’s no way of knowing if they are actually a narcissist. If my experience is common (and let’s be real here, unless you’re in the psychology field none of us are qualified to diagnose narcissism), of course this stuff won’t help because the person is right and nothing would sway them, and bitter folks, or maybe jealous folks, decided to proclaim the person has a mental illness (read, they are now flawed and you are superior) as well as insulting them calling them an asshole. And it’s kinda weird the other way too because if they do indeed have a mental illness, then they are not trying to be abrasive and often wouldn’t even be aware that they were until after the fact, so you’re calling a mentally ill person an asshole because they are mentally ill. Try doing that to someone with any other mental issue and see how well that goes over. But it’s fine to do for this one and everyone is fine with it. It’s shitty to go into a conversation with the best intentions and yet you always end up fucking it all up, hurting the relationship with that person when your goals were the exact opposite, being confused about why that always happens, and reflecting after the damage is done and seeing where you fucked up, tossing that onto the never ending pile of regret that follows you though life, your lonely lonely life because it’s impossible to maintain any relationship at all, not for long anyway… and then on top of it you’re called an asshole by someone who doesn’t have any idea how much it blows having narcissistic personality disorder (or what kind of childhood environment it takes for such a disorder to take root), or, they don’t understand that it’s not the same thing as someone choosing to be a dick in a conversation.
ketzo 3y ago
> TRY TO SOUND FRIENDLY. > Say "please" and "thank you"... use emojis... I'll add to this one -- use exclamation points! It's actually ridiculous how effective all these little things are. In my experience, men, engineers, and especially engineers who are men tend to think of this as unnecessary fluff. They often decline to add these little social niceties because to them, they sound inauthentic. That's not a character flaw or anything! You have every right to feel that way. I do think it is just categorically wrong, though. I don't know a better way to say it, but: you should really just start doing this. Even if it feels weird to you, it is incredible the degree to which it eases text-based interactions. Even if you aren't noticing it, I promise that other people are.
- TylerE 3y ago
  That's a cultural thing. In many cultures exclamation points come across as demands/accusations, not emphasis.
  - ketzo 3y ago
    That's fair, I'm writing from a West-Coast-USA-tech-company perspective. An exclamation point from a partner at a law firm... probably hits a little different! But in more informal communication, I think exclamation points are good because they help convey tone and energy in a way that is often lacking. It helps break up a message that can otherwise feel flat and cold.
    - Cushman 3y ago
      As a data point, the last email we got from our closing attorney was a single sentence ending in a period. Much like this one. The same message ending in an exclamation point would have been substantially less nerve-wracking :grimacing:
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I think people forget that the written word has a tendency to come across stern unless you make an effort to soften it. I know I forget this. There have been numerous times even here on HN where people have thought I was being critical or argumentative when that wasn't remotely what I was trying to communicate.
m0llusk 3y ago
The Center for Nonviolent Communication has some potentially useful ideas about this: https://www.cnvc.org/ https://www.cnvc.org/ Start with active listening by not interrupting and then confirm with the speaker what you think you heard them say. And so on. There is a community apart from the web site and the core book is worth a read.
- Seattle3503 3y ago
  It is interesting you mention interruption, because the original NVC book endorses certain kinds of interruptions. "Would you rather have someone pretend to listen, or to interrupt?"
  - stefandesu 3y ago
    > "Would you rather have someone pretend to listen, or to interrupt?" This is very interesting. In my experience, it applies especially to people who just can't. stop. talking. When someone gives you literally no chance to say anything (not even a few words), it's really hard to actually keep listening. So I have to either pretend to listen (but my thoughts are drifting off) or start interrupting, which I hate doing.
    - zestyping 3y ago
      Deciding when you need to interrupt, and interrupting in a way that shows you care about what the other person is saying, is a really important skill. I didn't realize the value of it until I took an NVC class, because I had previously assumed interrupting was always bad. But, when done well, it can be extremely helpful, not only for improving your understanding but also building connection with the other person.
switch007 3y ago
I’m wondering it that was all done over text (slack/teams etc) and could have been aided by picking up the phone? It reads like a guide to not giving the wrong impression and how not to annoy someone over a chat system.
toasted-subs 3y ago
[flagged]
- toasted-subs 3y ago
  [flagged]
softwaredoug 3y ago
My number one advice for handling difficult people is try not to internalize their behavior. It’s not about you or anything you did. It’s a “them” problem. Articles like this can make people on the receiving end of bad behavior are somehow at fault because they’re not saying please/thank you, etc. it’s a common fallacy, for example, that victims try to anticipate an abusers behavior and take on their own shoulders managing the chaos that is the abusers mood. When in reality there’s nothing you can do. I’ve learned trust is something you can’t lie to yourself about. It’s mentally so taxing to walk on eggshells constantly. The other side has to put in work. And I don’t need justification for not trusting someone else. The burden on proof for trust should be relatively high. You can 100% just trust your gut without having to understand or diagnose the other side. In the same way you trust your gut when in love or other situations.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Right, but this is not a guide to dealing with difficult people.
  - bGl2YW5j 3y ago
    I find the parent comment insightful, because my immediate reaction to seeing this article headline was, "that's what I needed when dealing with that difficult person recently...".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- awb 3y ago
  > It’s not about you or anything you did. It’s a “them” problem. It’s much easier to consider a conflict a “them” problem. That’s most people’s default. I’ve heard thousands of people complain about “them”, but they were never being abused or bullied. Instead you probably want to default to a conflict resolution attempt, or two or three, or whatever your tolerance is with that person. If those don’t work, then it’s an “us” problem. You tried your best, which is all you can control but the result isn’t working for you and that’s OK. The other person doesn’t have to change and neither do you, but you don’t need to work at it anymore if you’ve given all you’re willing to give.
mattxxx 3y ago
Note that this contrasts with BLUF, a good standard for direct, factual communication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication) In particular, the parts where you are adding buffers + prefaces ahead of the important content. That said, non-violent communication is super important, so learning to retract from more direct, factual styles in exchange for a style that make people feel understood and respected as a colleague is important. Tense situations usually evolve because both parties are adding slight amounts of intensity/unhappiness to the situation iteratively, and the only way to get them back to peaceful is by making commitment to making _the next interaction_ some amount less tense/hostile. Do that repeatedly and you'll get somewhere. PS: Also Stoicism helps especially with these things... great, practical text on it: "The Practicing Stoic: A Philosophical User's Manual" by Farnsworth
- tptacek 3y ago
  BLUF ("bottom line up-front") might make a lot of sense in in-person communications, especially regimented ones like the US military (the example from the article). And it's valuable advice for long-form or durable writing. But the constant casual writing ("chat") that characterizes tech work is a different environment with different pitfalls, which message board nerds have known about and discussed for-ev-er. I don't think BLUF squares well with chat environments; it seems like a recipe for being constantly misunderstood and mistrusted.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Teever 3y ago
  Thank you! I've been looking for this term for a while ever since someone posted a blog post about examples of US military memo writing on HN a few years ago. If anyone can remember that link and share it I would love that!
gsuuon 3y ago
I think a single take-away from this is to generally overcommunicate rather than under, especially around the social context stuff (e.g. expectations from either side).
scoofy 3y ago
Thanks for this
efangs 3y ago
I feel like this is missing a "know when it's time to call it quits" section.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  The POV of this article is a founder / co-founder though; calling it quits in those cases means possibly leaving a LOT of money on the table, or having to buy the other party out. It's not so much a human relationship as it's a business relationship with high stakes. Human relationships can pass, business relationships become expensive. How many people stay in a married relationship because of factors outside of themselves?
  - cf141q5325 3y ago
    You still might have to call it quits some time. Stakes just make it more difficult.
henning 3y ago
[flagged]
- frob 3y ago
  Wow, that's quite the accusation. I did some quick searching and couldn't find anything, but it's not the sort of thing that I would expect to be easily findable. What leads you to believe this?
  - spimmy 3y ago
    news to me too, and it's my company. :) i have no idea how these rumors get started.
generationP 3y ago
> Person B: “…. Hey, sorry to interrupt, but the story in my head is that you think owning that number is part of my job, and now you’re upset with me, or you think I’m incompetent at my job.” Do... people... talk like that?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  Not in a casual conversation. But sadly yes, sometimes that's the kind of super crafted sentence you come up with because you're trying to land on very tensed subject from an angle that is somewhat neutral. It's pretty complicated to start the subject from the other end, like "You seem to think I'm horrible at this job, but I quite disagree"
- NateEag 3y ago
  It's a bit clumsy, but yes - this is a clunky version of explicitly stating your own emotions and what's giving rise to those feelings. Putting those things out clearly in the open during difficult discussions can be incredibly powerful, awkward though it may be to achieve. Nonviolent Communication is the gold standard text on how to use this style of communication, and for people like myself who didn't learn how to communicate about emotions as children, it can be life-changing.
kapep 3y ago
"the story in my head" sounds really weird to me as a non-native speaker. Is that a common phrase? I guess "The story in my head is that you asked me to send that status email ..." means that this is what they remember. On the other hand "... the story in my head is that you think owning that number is part of my job, and now you’re upset with me, or you think I’m incompetent at my job" sounds like they mean "the story [that I made up] in my head". Can someone explain?
- maroonblazer 3y ago
  Despite how careful someone may be when communicating, there's almost always room for different interpretations of what's been communicated. The "story in my head" is another way of saying: "There's a few different ways to interpret what you're saying, and here's the interpretation that I've settled on. Is that the one you intended?"
- toast0 3y ago
  Yeah, that's what they mean. I don't think it's a common phrase, but it might be intentionally weird? I might instead instead say 'So, what I'm hearing is you want me to send that email.' But that phrase is often used for passive aggression, so it shouldn't be used in a low trust situation.
- awb 3y ago
  It’s a philosophical construct acknowledging that the speaker’s reality might not match the listener’s. It stems from the idea that we all perceive the world differently and that there is no universal truth. It’s a longer form of “I think”, which takes ownership of your thoughts and doesn’t force the other person to conform to your reality. It’s also an attempt to make an “unarguable” statement. You and I can debate forever if a chair is blue. But if I say “I think the chair looks blue”, it’s typically unreasonable for you to debate what thoughts are in my head.
- inerg 3y ago
  You've pretty much got it bang on. I suspect the author of the article is referencing this concept from Brené Brown who has written a full book around it. It's definitely a great read if your interested I've found her writing style flows really nicely. She does relate some concepts to her other books though so you may end up getting 3 books by the end of it :) https://www.amazon.ca/Rising-Strong-Ability-Transforms-Parent/dp/081298580X https://www.amazon.ca/Rising-Strong-Ability-Transforms-Paren...
jongjong 3y ago
I tend to have this problem but only with certain people... Ironically though, I find that people who distrust me are often themselves untrustworthy and they are projecting. I think maybe it's because I have an unusual personality with high confidence but without status-seeking which makes certain people distrust me and doubt my motives. I often talk myself down and openly criticize my own decisions when they were subpar - I'm thinking that this combination of confidence and self-criticizing throws most people off. Most successful people only talk themselves up and shift blame when they make a mistake.
- cf141q5325 3y ago
  It might help you to know that a lot of people are living predominantly via creating identities through social learning with a high focus on their ego (and the resulting reactions). Joscha Bach referenced it in his recent Lex Fridman appearance (#392) if you are curious. "Stages of Life", "Identity", "Enlightenment" and "How we think" are the relevant segments if i recall correctly.
Angostura 3y ago
The thing about engineering positive interactions at work is an interesting one. I wonder if that's why I'm always offering to make cups of tea
davesque 3y ago
Something I think is missing from this list: make a sacrifice for the sake of the other person. If trust has been damaged, it might take more than just talk to repair it. You may need to give the other person part of what they want as a gesture of good will. I've seen this go a long way in certain situations. Of course, this comes with some caveats. For example, if there's a power imbalance in a damaged relationship, it's not appropriate for the disadvantaged side to be making sacrifices. Also, the person making the sacrifice is entitled to notice whether or not the other party appreciates it. After all, no one wants to be taken advantage of. The point is sometimes you just need to demonstrate a charitable attitude when you want things to get back on track.
- marcod 3y ago
  I agree, to phrase it a little different, you have to make yourself vulnerable to repair a connection. Ideally, both sides will :)
- donw 3y ago
  You are correct. Words are cheap, and trust is expensive to repair, if it can be repaired at all.
- innagadadavida 3y ago
  As a software engineer in a fast paced high expectations team, I’ve come to realize writing tests is a good way to show this charitable attitude especially when you are new and have little knowledge and little leverage.
- bmelton 3y ago
  One should also expect it to take time. Perhaps the best analogy I've heard is that trust is a glass jar -- it can be slowly diminished or emptied out all at once (or the jar could indeed shatter), but absent extreme circumstances, the way in which it is usually built is by adding one marble of trust at a time and without doing anything to damage the trust until the jar is full.
- jfengel 3y ago
  If you trusted that a sacrifice would be received, you wouldn't need to make it. You'd already have trust. Instead, both sides will view themselves as disadvantaged. That's how you got into this mess. You can do it anyway, and live with the fact that you expect it to be a waste. Sometimes that touches off a virtuous cycle. Sometimes it reinforces a vicious one. There's no way to know beforehand.
marcod 3y ago
I posted this to my Facebook, and 30 seconds later the colleague I was envisioning having to apply this due a recent work conflict saw it ;)
aizatto 3y ago
I use "communication snippets" or "fillers" for example > Person A: “Hey, do you have any idea why this number is low? It’s a mystery … nobody I’ve talked to yet seems to know.” is really long I just say > curious; why is that number low? other prefixes I use are: 1. adding to the discussion 2. for discussion 3. low pri, no need to respond 4. neutral 5. nonactionable 6. sharing opinion https://www.notion.so/aizatto/communication-snippets-fillers-fa96945ed0194eb68d5884aa882bbc1e https://www.notion.so/aizatto/communication-snippets-fillers...
- enasterosophes 3y ago
  Not a criticism: this reminds me of Elcor speech in the Mass Effect trilogy, eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1PKFo1fYCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1PKFo1fYCA "Plainly, we discovered our vocal expression was not enough to convey the feelings of our conversations to other species." I never noticed the analogy before between Elcor and written/online communication. Now I'm wondering if it was intended by the game's writers.
  - translucyd 3y ago
    Amazing! It seams so the devs were thinking of this very idea.
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    There was a thread not long ago about semantic communication (I presume in code reviews) that touched on this same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37118098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37118098
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  Is there a way to get to this without signing up for yet another service?
gweinberg 3y ago
"That's not a character flaw or anything! You have every right to feel that way. I do think it is just categorically wrong, though." Do you have any idea how asinine that statement is? Let me translate it into English: "I respect your opinion, but actually I don't. You should communicate the way I prefer, not the way you prefer, because my feelings matter and yours don't". Don't tell me that's not what you said, because it absolutely is. Is it really that shocking that you don't always get much more respect than you give?
- cf141q5325 3y ago
  Not sure why this is downvoted. Your assumption could be wrong and categorically ruling that out without giving any real reasons means you likely are. Either way its far from a respectful attitude and doing that on shaky grounds is even worse. At best your opinion is incomplete. It overlooks that people often take faked niceties quite bad. Like the parent post. And are not free but require mental effort. With humans not really doing multi tasking. And while a positive attitude is healthier all around, we are talking work environment here. I shouldnt need to worry if somebody thinks a short and precise "Yes!" could be impolite or sarcastic. Its an accurate response and i shouldnt have to worry about babysitting your interpretation. Seeing as we are all working together give me the benefit of the doubt. Its as simple as that. And if you figure that to be misplaced, do inform me as i might be overlooking something. That wont be a difficult conversation, i will be grateful. edit: I would also be really worried how likely difficult conversations will be in such an environment. No amount of sugarcoating makes you fine with me kicking your favorite feature. And it might need kicking, no matter how attached you are. edit1: In case it helps, the reason people take fake niceties in the workplace so badly is because it selfishly increases the required effort from everyone else to meet the bar you already set rather high. When considering what is acceptable people now have to plan around you lying. Instead of cooperation you are getting managed because you require too much effort and dont say what you want for which reasons. Downvotes make a lot of sense seeing as he responded to the wrong post (ketzo was the post referenced)
  - watwut 3y ago
    The above does not sound like fake nicety to me. More like pure passive aggression and condescending way to tell you you are wrong.
notquitehuman 3y ago
Step 0: determine whether or not rebuilding trust is even worth the time and effort. When trust is lost, you’re not starting over—-you’re starting with a deficit.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
elliot_ta 3y ago
[flagged]
elliot_ta 3y ago
[flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  Can you please not do this here? We don't allow this sort of account on HN - it's against both the letter and spirit of the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
charles_f 3y ago
Interesting one. Fun stuff: I initially thought it would talk about a more technical aspect of trust and communication (e.g how do you have two services chat when you don't trust transport), and was expecting something like Byzantine faults or two generals problem, and such topics. But that made me wonder, are there any algorithms and techniques from the computer science world, related to communication in low trust, that could be retrofitted into the real world? Stuff like shared secrets, ACKs and such?
gobengo 3y ago
This reminds me of the good book "Crucial Conversations"
none_to_remain 3y ago
For me personally, people who try to talk at me this way get mentally noted as low-key malicious. Like PUA for the workplace.
- felurx 3y ago
  Why? Of course, someone might just be toxic. But if someone is actively trying to repair a relationship, wouldn't it be better for everyone to see it as that and try and reciprocate?
  - Scarblac 3y ago
    Maybe it's the difference between trying to sound friendly and actually being friendly. If it's noticeable that someone is using an unusual way of talking, the first impression is that it's merely the first, and insincere.
    - cma 3y ago
      Look at the speech patterns of the boss in Office Space, they are somewhat similarly passive aggressive sounding to the rewording advice in the article.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  It's a difficult one; it's clearly NOT natural behaviour for a lot of people, that is, it becomes learned behaviour. But because you're aware of it being learned behaviour - techniques people pick up from a book or website - anyone doing it instantly flags up as being untruthful. Example; some twenty years ago I learned this "factoid" that if you hold your palm downwards when giving a handshake (like turn your hand inwards), you will come across as dominant and assertive. Cue loads of people trying an awkward downward handshake. But to me it comes across as "I am trying to dominate you", and instantly dislike the person. It's like Trump yanking people in when giving a handshake.
lastangryman 3y ago
> Say “please” and “thank you” a lot. I remember a previous role the team leaders all went on a management training course. Everyone came back and started adding "please" to every request. I found it really patronising and felt like I was being spoken to like a 5 year old. > "Can you run the SQL update in prod?" Vs > "Can you run the SQL update in prod please?" The "please" sounds like an exasperated parent that is fed up giving the instruction. I'm also starting to get really sick of emojis everywhere. I don't think they added to this article at all. I hope it's just a temporary fad we are going through and this isn't the future of written communication.
- winternewt 3y ago
  When people use a lot of emojis, the story in my head is that they care more about keeping appearances up than about honesty and transparency. It's fake positivity.
  - felurx 3y ago
    Then tell them that! Give them the feedback they need so they can know how to communicate with you better. (Talking about person-to-person relationships, of course) In the end, this is a matter of taste. Just because something works for someone, it doesn't mean that it will work for everyone. But also: Just because something fails to work for someone, it doesn't mean that it will fail to work fo everyone.
  - IggleSniggle 3y ago
    I like to use emojis when they allow me to get denser content, especially if it's to be printed to a TTY. As long as there's a key somewhere, reducing var names to a single character allows you to pack in a lot more information, while simultaneously being far more expressive than eg "i", "j", "k". It gives you the benefits of columnar data without requiring scrolling back to see headers or even requiring that the columns be perfectly evenly spaced.
  - RugnirViking 3y ago
    I disagree. I feel there are certain "styles" of emoji use. I don't know if I can explain it well. for example ive worked with people who are really good communicators who use things like sunglasses emoji or muscle emoji to make you actually feel good and keep concise clear communication. But people who make some big long official announcement then pepper it with random emojis to make it more "fun" can be extremely offputting. There are appropriate times to put them but you gotta anticipate how your audience is likely to feel and use them to show you're communicating in good faith, and if you're communicating in bad faith, just don't use them at all, we can all tell. Also the choice and timing of emojis can be good or bad. Honestly I think it literally comes down to a culture difference between hr types and engineers
stefandesu 3y ago
> Ever meet someone you didn’t like online, and realize they’re terrific in person? Online communication loses sooooo much in transit. This is so true. I have a good friend who is, in my opinion, really bad at this. It seems like he has a talent to make even little requests sound aggressive when using written communication. If I didn't know him so well, I would certainly interpret that as very rude, even though in RL he's not like that. Thinking about this, I realize I have something like this as well. With close friends, I can be VERY direct in a way that's both not completely serious, but still carries my true opinion. And I think I do this without thinking too much, it just comes out (although it doesn't seem to happen with people I'm not that close with, maybe because I'm more guarded and self-conscious during those conversations). Luckily my friends can appreciate this tendency even though it would come across as super rude if I did that to a stranger. (I guess I can't say if my friend's case above is actually very similar. Maybe he, too, uses different language with people he's less close with, trusting that his good friends know him well enough.)
- Aachen 3y ago
  > > Online communication loses sooooo much in transit. > This is so true. I have a good friend who is, in my opinion, really bad at this. I don't think it's true at all. Most people, I can perfectly well talk to online and can occasionally have an easier time talking to than in person. The person I'd classify as my best friend, for example, I literally speak to 1-2 times a year, the rest is text conversations (at least once a week we have a longer chat I'd estimate). But I also know some people that are or were close to me who are terrible at texting. I can't seem to help them improve, either. If I'd believe that not everything can be learned to some extent, I'd say this is apparently something innate. They don't come across rude at all, in my case, but just no conversation flow whatsoever. It's a bit comparable to doing one of those interviews where you have to coax every word out of the interviewee. (There is also the category of people that only ever text on a phone (slow) or just can't type at a conversational speed in the first place (50wpm/250cpm maybe? Just a guess), or have dyslexia and find reading more than half a phone screen's worth of text a significant hurdle. That's different and not what I mean about being bad at texting.) Maybe you and the author are not people who are good at texting, and that's why you feel it is 'so true' that a lot is lost in text messages? Or maybe most of my friends and I are the outliers, that honestly wouldn't surprise me either, but either way, this thing portrayed as universal truth is far from it
its_a_random_ac 3y ago
Pretty good overall, except for a nit pick: > Person B: “…. Hey, sorry to interrupt, but the story in my head is that you think owning that number is part of my job, and now you’re upset with me, or you think I’m incompetent at my job.” Depending on the exact phrasing and group and company dynamics, I'd be worried a bit by saying something like this because Person A might think I'm trying to push off work or responsibility for some metric that I'm tangentially responsible for.
- blackkettle 3y ago
  Same thing with “try to sound friendly.” Please and thank you are essential. But there are few things I hate more than cloying emails that start with “Hi!” (the exclamation point is the problem) and emoji are definitely worse. Being polite is professional and shows mutual respect; IMO it implies an intention to build trust. Affecting the trappings of friendliness or even loose intimacy in a professional setting or any setting where the relationship is in a rough spot has a strong chance of coming off as disingenuous.
brinebrine 3y ago
[flagged]
Apploks 3y ago
[dead]
Apploks 3y ago
[dead]
smackeyacky 3y ago
So many trusting people here. I am sorry but trusting shitheels is always a mistake. Always. Cut that relationsip off at the root and walk away. No second chances, ever.
- cf141q5325 3y ago
  >No second chances, ever. I find this to be an unrealistic standard. We all have lapses given the right moment (attention, tiredness, distraction). The question is do people comprehend the problem and are willing to work on it/ adjust for it? Differently put, the issue isnt just one of detecting problems but detecting those that cant be fixed/adjusted for. Which means putting resources into debugging how they appear for which reasons. Seeing as walking away is costly, that can often be a worth while investment. This is less about trusting and more about valuing functioning team relationships. Benefit of the doubt is a good strategy for team building, at the very least for information gathering.
PoignardAzur 3y ago
> Compose yourself. Firing off a reply while you are in fight-or-flight mode reliably* leads to unintentional escalations.* Oh, that's a pretty great insight! Or maybe not an insight, but it's putting clear words on a pretty important concept.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

629 points by zdw 3y ago

From my experience communication isn’t the problem, the root cause is always power struggle, directly or indirectly, and everything else follows, surprisingly it is the case also between nations throughout history.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

glonq 3y ago

How timely. My boss just crucified a co-worker today in our meeting and I think something like this could help mend things. Yes, my boss never heard of "praise in public criticize in private". Welcome to working with a hot-blooded eastern european

gottorf 3y ago
Management by perkele!
- yread 3y ago
  Is Finland now Eastern Europe? More like Kurwa management.
  - yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
    Poland is typically regarded as Central Europe.
    - rcbdev 3y ago
      By whom? Czechs (wholly western to Poland) are always called "Eastern Europeans" in contemporary media and or any place I have ever worked before.
      - yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
        By just about everyone in Poland, at least. Historically, “Eastern Europe” has been used as more of a derogatory signifier in places where it’s culturally acceptable to make jokes at the expense of Slavs, like in Germany or USA. Let’s not forget that Vienna is actually geographically further East than Prague, though I doubt many Austrians would be comfortable considering themselves Eastern European. Poland is pretty squarely in the middle of Europe by a number of metrics. If we’re talking about time zone, Poland uses Central European [Summer] Time. If we’re talking geographically, most of the claimants to the geographical midpoint of Europe are actually East of Poland. If we’re talking politically, then the midpoint of the European Union is said to be in Würzburg, which is only 470km South-West from the border with Poland. And we can hardly say that anything East of Würzburg is Eastern Europe, since that would include all of Austria.
        cf141q5325 3y ago
        >Historically, “Eastern Europe” has been used as more of a derogatory signifier in places where it’s culturally acceptable to make jokes at the expense of Slavs, like in Germany or USA. I am calling bullshit. It simply referenced the Soviet zone. Eastern Europe was everything behind the iron curtain, including Eastern Germany. Everything else was Western Europe, including countries in the North and South of Europe. edit: Its also worth mentioning that framing that geopolitical conflict as racist is highly oversimplistic and counterproductive. The only upside i can think of is signaling and the stakes are far too high for such selfish endeavors. Stuff is just complicated and geopolitical conflicts even more so.
        yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
        …And you're an authority on this topic are you?
    - _0ffh 3y ago
      Depends if you go for geographical location or the iron curtain east/west distinction, which is still used by many and culturally relevant.
      - yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
        Just because it’s used, doesn’t make it valid. I don’t think the historical Iron Curtain is a useful means by which to make that distinction today. Unless you’re willing to proclaim to Berliners that you love being in Berlin despite it being in Eastern Europe. I think you would raise some eyebrows. Or fists.
        cf141q5325 3y ago
        You can make the exact same argument for Russia and Turkey being European. This kind of vocabulary works through consensus about attached meaning. Usage determines validity. You can tell by there being no agreed upon geographic line on a map going through countries.
breakingwalls 3y ago
Very timely for me as well, have been having tough time with my partner especially about how unfriendly and critical I sound, even though my intentions are for general improvement and well being around home.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- TylerE 3y ago
  There is little less welcome than unsolicited "advice", especially coming from the person and place that are supposed to be the refuge from all the shit going on in the world.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    "Hey, are you open to feedback?" works wonders. Also be prepared for "no". This does require someone who's able to say no though, which isn't a given.
  - awb 3y ago
    A long-term partner probably knows you better than anyone. No one likes getting called out on their stuff, if you want to grow as a person or as a couple you’re going to move past that initial discomfort, reflect on it and then decide if it’s valid enough feedback to try to integrate it.
belval 3y ago
I just finished reading the culture map (an HN recommendation!) and it was actually very eye opening. This is not to excuse bad behaviour in the workplace, but it's entirely possible that depending on where he comes from in eastern europe that's just how tough feedback is given and he didn't perceive it as a "crucifiction".
- function_seven 3y ago
  I felt slighted once when a former CEO of mine didn't lambast me on our weekly call. I took it to mean that I wasn't important enough to get the dressing down he was known for. (I mean, I was still relieved to avoid it! Just thought it was funny to feel disrespected because I got gentle treatment :)
andrei_says_ 3y ago
Hot blooded Eastern Europeans can learn, too. You do know the difference and concept. If it’s safe, educate.
- glonq 3y ago
  It is not particularly safe. My boss has several positive attributes, but emotional intelligence is not one of them.
vasco 3y ago
Nobody should be crucified either in public or in private. But correcting mistakes and making it explicit to the whole team what the problem was and how we'll minimize the chances of reocurring is best done in front of the team. Everyone learns together, and most importantly, they see how you react to mistakes. They won't be afraid to talk about their mistakes if they see your normal reaction. It'll also feel less bad because now everyone is aware that everyone makes one every once in a while. Create a culture where nothing is a personal attack and performance is just what it is, instead of something to be ashamed of. In school all the kids get all their grades publicly, you don't get public grades if you do good and private grades if you do bad on the exam. And somehow we're all here and understood that it was what it was. The problem is that it was done as a "crucification". Shouting and blaming and being an ass to someone are wrong to do either in private or in public.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > Nobody should be crucified either in public or in private. Serious reprimands need to happen in private. We can use euphemisms or severe language, but sometimes people need to be told, "You fouled up, you were careless, you were indiscriminate, and your reckless mistake cost the company more money than you make in a year, which may cost someone ELSE their job because of budget cuts." Always remember that your foul-ups could cost someone their life or their livelihood. This isn't kindergarten. Adults need to be told honestly about the damage they caused.
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  Huh. In my schooling experience, all grades were quite private unless someone shared!
  - vasco 3y ago
    Woah! I just assumed this is how it worked everywhere. I might just need to re-think my whole stance and look this up. Thanks for sharing, I never thought to question it.
- zestyping 3y ago
  The following case is interesting because it might fall in the space between what various folks on this thread consider acceptable. An engineer on my team once merged a change that created a security vulnerability, without review. We didn't have any real users on prod yet, and the potential impact was small. But I was still angry because I had given explicit instructions (speaking as the tech lead and the one with the most security experience) that all changes had to go through code review for security issues. I responded with an email message that was visible to the whole team (about 5 people). I knew it would sting, but I also wanted everyone to know that this was an important line not to cross, because at some point in the near future we did hope to have real users. I wrote, approximately, "You merged this change without review, and that's not okay. I explicitly told you not to do that. As a result, we now have a security vulnerability. Don't ever do that again." I am paraphrasing from memory, but the tone was not too far off from this: stern, direct criticism without personal attack. At the time, I held myself to a simple standard of communication: stating facts and criticising actions (even bluntly) was acceptable; any criticism of personal attributes was unacceptable. The engineer in question was very hurt and angry with me, and our working relationship was difficult for many weeks after that. Was I the asshole here? What's your standard of communication, and what would you do, from the point of view of the tech lead or as the engineer?
balfirevic 3y ago
> Welcome to working with a hot-blooded eastern european It's funny, one other commenter pointed out how you won't get far in Eastern Europe without saying "please" and "thank you" a lot. I'm from there and it's true - we have both rude and polite people!
- watwut 3y ago
  The same person criticizing you can also use please and thank you. There is zero dichotomy between the two.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

morley 3y ago

This is such a great blog post. I wish I had read this ten years ago.

apsurd 3y ago

Great read. Another helpful cue I give myself is "The opt-in". Always give your partner the chance to opt-in to the conversation. Opt-ins can be subtle or explicit relative to the heaviness. Opt-in can be a simple pause allowing the other person to volley back. A chance to follow up with questions, contribute, or change the subject heh. TONS of people don't do this. myself included. Take a beat. For hard conversations, explicitly ask them if they are are ok talking about X, or if they have time: "hey I wanted to talk about the fight last night, do you have time now?"

kevinmchugh 3y ago
I learned this from The Effective Manager. When giving feedback you always ask if the person is open to it. It gives them the chance to avoid/delay if it's a bad day, and makes them bought in.

datadrivenangel 3y ago

This is good advice. :) I'm not sure how much it helps when the low trust is one sided.

OJFord 3y ago

I thought I was going to like this, but other than 'Give people the opening to do better' section, the advised interactions seem not great to me? e.g. I want to say something, but I am having a hard time with it. I have something to say, but I don’t know how you’ll take it. I need to tell you something and I am anxious about your reaction. are (1) making me anxious while I wait for you to say whatever it is; (2) absolving you of any responsibility for what it is or how I feel about it before I even know what it is? … or check in afterwards. so now you've given me bad news, poor feedback, whatever - and I have to make you feel better about it?

ketzo 3y ago
In theory, I'm with you; in practicality, I have always found that literally just a one-sentence lead-in -- even if it's not perfect -- goes a long way towards a better conversation. I kind agree with you on your reading of the subtexts, here, but in a conversation, I just don't think these sentiments come off that way. Rather, we tend to interpret them as noise that lets the other person know that a difficult topic is coming, instead of just dunking them in head first. "Hey, I wanted to let you know about some bad news. one-breath pause <bad news here>" has always worked better for me, as both the deliverer and the recipient, than "Hey, <bad news>." Basically what I'm saying is that you could definitely read into these suggested phrases, as you have; but they play out way differently in a real-life conversation.
tptacek 3y ago
I unreservedly love this article and found a lot of it valuable despite decades of career experience stepping in it with coworkers (and vice versa). But I agree with you about up-front acknowledgements of hard conversations. They're the workplace equivalent of "we need to talk". I'm an anxious person by nature, so "we need to talk" is about the most painful thing you can say to me: my mind will immediately project out the worst possible case, and the relief I get when your real issue is nowhere nearly that bad isn't going to fully absorb the cortisol the opening generates for me. Fortunately, the article anticipates this, and you've misread it a bit. Notice the headline for the follow-up is "OR check in afterwards", not "AND check in afterwards". Checking in afterwards is the right alternative when you're working with me. It might not be with other people. And, the straightforward answer to the question your comment asks: yes. Yes, you have to make them feel better about it. When you're working on a team, part of your responsibility as a team member is to keep relationships working smoothly. To put it in Reddit parlance: if someone steps in it with you, and then asks you to make them feel better about it afterwards, and you get irritated about the check-in: YTA. Not ESH: YTA. They did the right thing by (1) being concerned they handled the initial interaction poorly and (2) following up on it to clear the air. You'd have punished them for doing the right thing, which is worse than handling the initial interaction poorly!

wenc 3y ago

I like that this is battle tested advice derived from a real context (between the author and co founder). There are tons of articles on LinkedIn written by people who don’t have lived experience in what they’re writing about so they read like a book summary. Empiricists on the other hand will preside test ideas. The best teacher is reality.

dilyevsky 3y ago

From experience CC advice and other similar corp bs techniques are like “self defense class” techniques of communication meaning they only work if the other party is well meaning and actively cooperating. Which is to say they rarely work even if properly executed.

TylerE 3y ago
Sort of like how MMA showed that most of the traditional martial arts aren't actually good except as exercise.
- tanjtanjtanj 3y ago
  MMA showed everyone that shielding yourself with the back of your head is a great tactic in a sport where you can't strike the back of someone's head.
tptacek 3y ago
If your team is mostly comprised of people operating in bad faith, no advice (other than "disband") is going to help you. The premise of this article is that you have a team operating in good faith, but with fragile trust, which is a much more common problem in startups than a team of vipers.
- dilyevsky 3y ago
  That’s certainly true but these techniques also dont work on people who just don’t care rather than being outright malicious and there seems to be a lot more of those
  - tptacek 3y ago
    That's true. It's a good point. They also don't work on dogs, so you should keep that in mind if your team is largely canine in nature.
    - 3y ago

nelsondev 3y ago

I wish this article wasn’t helpful. But I find myself using these tactics around thin-skinned colleagues, who need little pats on the head.

tptacek 3y ago
We're all thin-skinned at times, which is why this article's take is so valuable, and it's helpful to just be careful with everybody, or at least have a set of tools ready to deploy if you manage to step in it, or someone manages to step in it with you.
xen2xen1 3y ago
Gen Z?
awb 3y ago
If you’re approaching someone and have judgmental thoughts about them, it’s probably leaking out through body language, tone or other social cues, causing you to have to be extra careful to compensate. If you don’t like having to use these techniques, respect and appreciation also goes a long way. Instead of judging them as “thin-skinned colleagues who need little pats on the head”, maybe try getting to know them and how their childhood might have played a role, or how their personality benefits them or the community in certain ways. For example, maybe you see it as a chance to practice gratitude, which is a virtue in many cultures.

testfoobar 3y ago

This is all well and good advice. But sometimes you have to work with people who demonstrate traits of Narcissism Personality Disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder. E.g. someone who never accepts responsibility or someone frequently demonstrating emotional lability. I am not sure the best course of action in these situations.

llamaLord 3y ago
Yeah I think it's important to note that these techniques are for situations where trust has broken down due to something external, not due to a fundamental issue with one of the people involved. This stuff will never help with narcissistic ass holes.
- ransackdev 3y ago
  Narcissist seems to be a label that’s often applied to confident people who are direct in what they say, and because they know that what they are saying is correct (hence the confidence), they tend to be pretty inflexible on any suggested alternatives. The other parties naturally feel unheard or steamrolled over and end up calling the person a narcissistic asshole, but in my personal experience, that’s hardly ever actually the case, or at the very least, there’s no way of knowing if they are actually a narcissist. If my experience is common (and let’s be real here, unless you’re in the psychology field none of us are qualified to diagnose narcissism), of course this stuff won’t help because the person is right and nothing would sway them, and bitter folks, or maybe jealous folks, decided to proclaim the person has a mental illness (read, they are now flawed and you are superior) as well as insulting them calling them an asshole. And it’s kinda weird the other way too because if they do indeed have a mental illness, then they are not trying to be abrasive and often wouldn’t even be aware that they were until after the fact, so you’re calling a mentally ill person an asshole because they are mentally ill. Try doing that to someone with any other mental issue and see how well that goes over. But it’s fine to do for this one and everyone is fine with it. It’s shitty to go into a conversation with the best intentions and yet you always end up fucking it all up, hurting the relationship with that person when your goals were the exact opposite, being confused about why that always happens, and reflecting after the damage is done and seeing where you fucked up, tossing that onto the never ending pile of regret that follows you though life, your lonely lonely life because it’s impossible to maintain any relationship at all, not for long anyway… and then on top of it you’re called an asshole by someone who doesn’t have any idea how much it blows having narcissistic personality disorder (or what kind of childhood environment it takes for such a disorder to take root), or, they don’t understand that it’s not the same thing as someone choosing to be a dick in a conversation.

ketzo 3y ago

> TRY TO SOUND FRIENDLY. > Say "please" and "thank you"... use emojis... I'll add to this one -- use exclamation points! It's actually ridiculous how effective all these little things are. In my experience, men, engineers, and especially engineers who are men tend to think of this as unnecessary fluff. They often decline to add these little social niceties because to them, they sound inauthentic. That's not a character flaw or anything! You have every right to feel that way. I do think it is just categorically wrong, though. I don't know a better way to say it, but: you should really just start doing this. Even if it feels weird to you, it is incredible the degree to which it eases text-based interactions. Even if you aren't noticing it, I promise that other people are.

TylerE 3y ago
That's a cultural thing. In many cultures exclamation points come across as demands/accusations, not emphasis.
- ketzo 3y ago
  That's fair, I'm writing from a West-Coast-USA-tech-company perspective. An exclamation point from a partner at a law firm... probably hits a little different! But in more informal communication, I think exclamation points are good because they help convey tone and energy in a way that is often lacking. It helps break up a message that can otherwise feel flat and cold.
  - Cushman 3y ago
    As a data point, the last email we got from our closing attorney was a single sentence ending in a period. Much like this one. The same message ending in an exclamation point would have been substantially less nerve-wracking :grimacing:
JohnFen 3y ago
I think people forget that the written word has a tendency to come across stern unless you make an effort to soften it. I know I forget this. There have been numerous times even here on HN where people have thought I was being critical or argumentative when that wasn't remotely what I was trying to communicate.

m0llusk 3y ago

The Center for Nonviolent Communication has some potentially useful ideas about this: https://www.cnvc.org/ https://www.cnvc.org/ Start with active listening by not interrupting and then confirm with the speaker what you think you heard them say. And so on. There is a community apart from the web site and the core book is worth a read.

Seattle3503 3y ago
It is interesting you mention interruption, because the original NVC book endorses certain kinds of interruptions. "Would you rather have someone pretend to listen, or to interrupt?"
- stefandesu 3y ago
  > "Would you rather have someone pretend to listen, or to interrupt?" This is very interesting. In my experience, it applies especially to people who just can't. stop. talking. When someone gives you literally no chance to say anything (not even a few words), it's really hard to actually keep listening. So I have to either pretend to listen (but my thoughts are drifting off) or start interrupting, which I hate doing.
  - zestyping 3y ago
    Deciding when you need to interrupt, and interrupting in a way that shows you care about what the other person is saying, is a really important skill. I didn't realize the value of it until I took an NVC class, because I had previously assumed interrupting was always bad. But, when done well, it can be extremely helpful, not only for improving your understanding but also building connection with the other person.

switch007 3y ago

I’m wondering it that was all done over text (slack/teams etc) and could have been aided by picking up the phone? It reads like a guide to not giving the wrong impression and how not to annoy someone over a chat system.

toasted-subs 3y ago

[flagged]

toasted-subs 3y ago
[flagged]

softwaredoug 3y ago

My number one advice for handling difficult people is try not to internalize their behavior. It’s not about you or anything you did. It’s a “them” problem. Articles like this can make people on the receiving end of bad behavior are somehow at fault because they’re not saying please/thank you, etc. it’s a common fallacy, for example, that victims try to anticipate an abusers behavior and take on their own shoulders managing the chaos that is the abusers mood. When in reality there’s nothing you can do. I’ve learned trust is something you can’t lie to yourself about. It’s mentally so taxing to walk on eggshells constantly. The other side has to put in work. And I don’t need justification for not trusting someone else. The burden on proof for trust should be relatively high. You can 100% just trust your gut without having to understand or diagnose the other side. In the same way you trust your gut when in love or other situations.

tptacek 3y ago
Right, but this is not a guide to dealing with difficult people.
- bGl2YW5j 3y ago
  I find the parent comment insightful, because my immediate reaction to seeing this article headline was, "that's what I needed when dealing with that difficult person recently...".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
awb 3y ago
> It’s not about you or anything you did. It’s a “them” problem. It’s much easier to consider a conflict a “them” problem. That’s most people’s default. I’ve heard thousands of people complain about “them”, but they were never being abused or bullied. Instead you probably want to default to a conflict resolution attempt, or two or three, or whatever your tolerance is with that person. If those don’t work, then it’s an “us” problem. You tried your best, which is all you can control but the result isn’t working for you and that’s OK. The other person doesn’t have to change and neither do you, but you don’t need to work at it anymore if you’ve given all you’re willing to give.

mattxxx 3y ago

Note that this contrasts with BLUF, a good standard for direct, factual communication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication) In particular, the parts where you are adding buffers + prefaces ahead of the important content. That said, non-violent communication is super important, so learning to retract from more direct, factual styles in exchange for a style that make people feel understood and respected as a colleague is important. Tense situations usually evolve because both parties are adding slight amounts of intensity/unhappiness to the situation iteratively, and the only way to get them back to peaceful is by making commitment to making _the next interaction_ some amount less tense/hostile. Do that repeatedly and you'll get somewhere. PS: Also Stoicism helps especially with these things... great, practical text on it: "The Practicing Stoic: A Philosophical User's Manual" by Farnsworth

tptacek 3y ago
BLUF ("bottom line up-front") might make a lot of sense in in-person communications, especially regimented ones like the US military (the example from the article). And it's valuable advice for long-form or durable writing. But the constant casual writing ("chat") that characterizes tech work is a different environment with different pitfalls, which message board nerds have known about and discussed for-ev-er. I don't think BLUF squares well with chat environments; it seems like a recipe for being constantly misunderstood and mistrusted.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Teever 3y ago
Thank you! I've been looking for this term for a while ever since someone posted a blog post about examples of US military memo writing on HN a few years ago. If anyone can remember that link and share it I would love that!

gsuuon 3y ago

I think a single take-away from this is to generally overcommunicate rather than under, especially around the social context stuff (e.g. expectations from either side).

scoofy 3y ago

Thanks for this

efangs 3y ago

I feel like this is missing a "know when it's time to call it quits" section.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
The POV of this article is a founder / co-founder though; calling it quits in those cases means possibly leaving a LOT of money on the table, or having to buy the other party out. It's not so much a human relationship as it's a business relationship with high stakes. Human relationships can pass, business relationships become expensive. How many people stay in a married relationship because of factors outside of themselves?
- cf141q5325 3y ago
  You still might have to call it quits some time. Stakes just make it more difficult.

henning 3y ago

[flagged]

frob 3y ago
Wow, that's quite the accusation. I did some quick searching and couldn't find anything, but it's not the sort of thing that I would expect to be easily findable. What leads you to believe this?
- spimmy 3y ago
  news to me too, and it's my company. :) i have no idea how these rumors get started.

generationP 3y ago

> Person B: “…. Hey, sorry to interrupt, but the story in my head is that you think owning that number is part of my job, and now you’re upset with me, or you think I’m incompetent at my job.” Do... people... talk like that?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
makeitdouble 3y ago
Not in a casual conversation. But sadly yes, sometimes that's the kind of super crafted sentence you come up with because you're trying to land on very tensed subject from an angle that is somewhat neutral. It's pretty complicated to start the subject from the other end, like "You seem to think I'm horrible at this job, but I quite disagree"
NateEag 3y ago
It's a bit clumsy, but yes - this is a clunky version of explicitly stating your own emotions and what's giving rise to those feelings. Putting those things out clearly in the open during difficult discussions can be incredibly powerful, awkward though it may be to achieve. Nonviolent Communication is the gold standard text on how to use this style of communication, and for people like myself who didn't learn how to communicate about emotions as children, it can be life-changing.

kapep 3y ago

"the story in my head" sounds really weird to me as a non-native speaker. Is that a common phrase? I guess "The story in my head is that you asked me to send that status email ..." means that this is what they remember. On the other hand "... the story in my head is that you think owning that number is part of my job, and now you’re upset with me, or you think I’m incompetent at my job" sounds like they mean "the story [that I made up] in my head". Can someone explain?

maroonblazer 3y ago
Despite how careful someone may be when communicating, there's almost always room for different interpretations of what's been communicated. The "story in my head" is another way of saying: "There's a few different ways to interpret what you're saying, and here's the interpretation that I've settled on. Is that the one you intended?"
toast0 3y ago
Yeah, that's what they mean. I don't think it's a common phrase, but it might be intentionally weird? I might instead instead say 'So, what I'm hearing is you want me to send that email.' But that phrase is often used for passive aggression, so it shouldn't be used in a low trust situation.
awb 3y ago
It’s a philosophical construct acknowledging that the speaker’s reality might not match the listener’s. It stems from the idea that we all perceive the world differently and that there is no universal truth. It’s a longer form of “I think”, which takes ownership of your thoughts and doesn’t force the other person to conform to your reality. It’s also an attempt to make an “unarguable” statement. You and I can debate forever if a chair is blue. But if I say “I think the chair looks blue”, it’s typically unreasonable for you to debate what thoughts are in my head.
inerg 3y ago
You've pretty much got it bang on. I suspect the author of the article is referencing this concept from Brené Brown who has written a full book around it. It's definitely a great read if your interested I've found her writing style flows really nicely. She does relate some concepts to her other books though so you may end up getting 3 books by the end of it :) https://www.amazon.ca/Rising-Strong-Ability-Transforms-Parent/dp/081298580X https://www.amazon.ca/Rising-Strong-Ability-Transforms-Paren...

jongjong 3y ago

I tend to have this problem but only with certain people... Ironically though, I find that people who distrust me are often themselves untrustworthy and they are projecting. I think maybe it's because I have an unusual personality with high confidence but without status-seeking which makes certain people distrust me and doubt my motives. I often talk myself down and openly criticize my own decisions when they were subpar - I'm thinking that this combination of confidence and self-criticizing throws most people off. Most successful people only talk themselves up and shift blame when they make a mistake.

cf141q5325 3y ago
It might help you to know that a lot of people are living predominantly via creating identities through social learning with a high focus on their ego (and the resulting reactions). Joscha Bach referenced it in his recent Lex Fridman appearance (#392) if you are curious. "Stages of Life", "Identity", "Enlightenment" and "How we think" are the relevant segments if i recall correctly.

Angostura 3y ago

The thing about engineering positive interactions at work is an interesting one. I wonder if that's why I'm always offering to make cups of tea

davesque 3y ago

Something I think is missing from this list: make a sacrifice for the sake of the other person. If trust has been damaged, it might take more than just talk to repair it. You may need to give the other person part of what they want as a gesture of good will. I've seen this go a long way in certain situations. Of course, this comes with some caveats. For example, if there's a power imbalance in a damaged relationship, it's not appropriate for the disadvantaged side to be making sacrifices. Also, the person making the sacrifice is entitled to notice whether or not the other party appreciates it. After all, no one wants to be taken advantage of. The point is sometimes you just need to demonstrate a charitable attitude when you want things to get back on track.

marcod 3y ago
I agree, to phrase it a little different, you have to make yourself vulnerable to repair a connection. Ideally, both sides will :)
donw 3y ago
You are correct. Words are cheap, and trust is expensive to repair, if it can be repaired at all.
innagadadavida 3y ago
As a software engineer in a fast paced high expectations team, I’ve come to realize writing tests is a good way to show this charitable attitude especially when you are new and have little knowledge and little leverage.
bmelton 3y ago
One should also expect it to take time. Perhaps the best analogy I've heard is that trust is a glass jar -- it can be slowly diminished or emptied out all at once (or the jar could indeed shatter), but absent extreme circumstances, the way in which it is usually built is by adding one marble of trust at a time and without doing anything to damage the trust until the jar is full.
jfengel 3y ago
If you trusted that a sacrifice would be received, you wouldn't need to make it. You'd already have trust. Instead, both sides will view themselves as disadvantaged. That's how you got into this mess. You can do it anyway, and live with the fact that you expect it to be a waste. Sometimes that touches off a virtuous cycle. Sometimes it reinforces a vicious one. There's no way to know beforehand.

marcod 3y ago

I posted this to my Facebook, and 30 seconds later the colleague I was envisioning having to apply this due a recent work conflict saw it ;)

aizatto 3y ago

I use "communication snippets" or "fillers" for example > Person A: “Hey, do you have any idea why this number is low? It’s a mystery … nobody I’ve talked to yet seems to know.” is really long I just say > curious; why is that number low? other prefixes I use are: 1. adding to the discussion 2. for discussion 3. low pri, no need to respond 4. neutral 5. nonactionable 6. sharing opinion https://www.notion.so/aizatto/communication-snippets-fillers-fa96945ed0194eb68d5884aa882bbc1e https://www.notion.so/aizatto/communication-snippets-fillers...

enasterosophes 3y ago
Not a criticism: this reminds me of Elcor speech in the Mass Effect trilogy, eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1PKFo1fYCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1PKFo1fYCA "Plainly, we discovered our vocal expression was not enough to convey the feelings of our conversations to other species." I never noticed the analogy before between Elcor and written/online communication. Now I'm wondering if it was intended by the game's writers.
- translucyd 3y ago
  Amazing! It seams so the devs were thinking of this very idea.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  There was a thread not long ago about semantic communication (I presume in code reviews) that touched on this same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37118098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37118098
IggleSniggle 3y ago
Is there a way to get to this without signing up for yet another service?

gweinberg 3y ago

"That's not a character flaw or anything! You have every right to feel that way. I do think it is just categorically wrong, though." Do you have any idea how asinine that statement is? Let me translate it into English: "I respect your opinion, but actually I don't. You should communicate the way I prefer, not the way you prefer, because my feelings matter and yours don't". Don't tell me that's not what you said, because it absolutely is. Is it really that shocking that you don't always get much more respect than you give?

cf141q5325 3y ago
Not sure why this is downvoted. Your assumption could be wrong and categorically ruling that out without giving any real reasons means you likely are. Either way its far from a respectful attitude and doing that on shaky grounds is even worse. At best your opinion is incomplete. It overlooks that people often take faked niceties quite bad. Like the parent post. And are not free but require mental effort. With humans not really doing multi tasking. And while a positive attitude is healthier all around, we are talking work environment here. I shouldnt need to worry if somebody thinks a short and precise "Yes!" could be impolite or sarcastic. Its an accurate response and i shouldnt have to worry about babysitting your interpretation. Seeing as we are all working together give me the benefit of the doubt. Its as simple as that. And if you figure that to be misplaced, do inform me as i might be overlooking something. That wont be a difficult conversation, i will be grateful. edit: I would also be really worried how likely difficult conversations will be in such an environment. No amount of sugarcoating makes you fine with me kicking your favorite feature. And it might need kicking, no matter how attached you are. edit1: In case it helps, the reason people take fake niceties in the workplace so badly is because it selfishly increases the required effort from everyone else to meet the bar you already set rather high. When considering what is acceptable people now have to plan around you lying. Instead of cooperation you are getting managed because you require too much effort and dont say what you want for which reasons. Downvotes make a lot of sense seeing as he responded to the wrong post (ketzo was the post referenced)
- watwut 3y ago
  The above does not sound like fake nicety to me. More like pure passive aggression and condescending way to tell you you are wrong.

notquitehuman 3y ago

Step 0: determine whether or not rebuilding trust is even worth the time and effort. When trust is lost, you’re not starting over—-you’re starting with a deficit.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

elliot_ta 3y ago

[flagged]

elliot_ta 3y ago

[flagged]

dang 3y ago
Can you please not do this here? We don't allow this sort of account on HN - it's against both the letter and spirit of the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

charles_f 3y ago

Interesting one. Fun stuff: I initially thought it would talk about a more technical aspect of trust and communication (e.g how do you have two services chat when you don't trust transport), and was expecting something like Byzantine faults or two generals problem, and such topics. But that made me wonder, are there any algorithms and techniques from the computer science world, related to communication in low trust, that could be retrofitted into the real world? Stuff like shared secrets, ACKs and such?

gobengo 3y ago

This reminds me of the good book "Crucial Conversations"

none_to_remain 3y ago

For me personally, people who try to talk at me this way get mentally noted as low-key malicious. Like PUA for the workplace.

felurx 3y ago
Why? Of course, someone might just be toxic. But if someone is actively trying to repair a relationship, wouldn't it be better for everyone to see it as that and try and reciprocate?
- Scarblac 3y ago
  Maybe it's the difference between trying to sound friendly and actually being friendly. If it's noticeable that someone is using an unusual way of talking, the first impression is that it's merely the first, and insincere.
  - cma 3y ago
    Look at the speech patterns of the boss in Office Space, they are somewhat similarly passive aggressive sounding to the rewording advice in the article.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
It's a difficult one; it's clearly NOT natural behaviour for a lot of people, that is, it becomes learned behaviour. But because you're aware of it being learned behaviour - techniques people pick up from a book or website - anyone doing it instantly flags up as being untruthful. Example; some twenty years ago I learned this "factoid" that if you hold your palm downwards when giving a handshake (like turn your hand inwards), you will come across as dominant and assertive. Cue loads of people trying an awkward downward handshake. But to me it comes across as "I am trying to dominate you", and instantly dislike the person. It's like Trump yanking people in when giving a handshake.

lastangryman 3y ago

> Say “please” and “thank you” a lot. I remember a previous role the team leaders all went on a management training course. Everyone came back and started adding "please" to every request. I found it really patronising and felt like I was being spoken to like a 5 year old. > "Can you run the SQL update in prod?" Vs > "Can you run the SQL update in prod please?" The "please" sounds like an exasperated parent that is fed up giving the instruction. I'm also starting to get really sick of emojis everywhere. I don't think they added to this article at all. I hope it's just a temporary fad we are going through and this isn't the future of written communication.

winternewt 3y ago
When people use a lot of emojis, the story in my head is that they care more about keeping appearances up than about honesty and transparency. It's fake positivity.
- felurx 3y ago
  Then tell them that! Give them the feedback they need so they can know how to communicate with you better. (Talking about person-to-person relationships, of course) In the end, this is a matter of taste. Just because something works for someone, it doesn't mean that it will work for everyone. But also: Just because something fails to work for someone, it doesn't mean that it will fail to work fo everyone.
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  I like to use emojis when they allow me to get denser content, especially if it's to be printed to a TTY. As long as there's a key somewhere, reducing var names to a single character allows you to pack in a lot more information, while simultaneously being far more expressive than eg "i", "j", "k". It gives you the benefits of columnar data without requiring scrolling back to see headers or even requiring that the columns be perfectly evenly spaced.
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  I disagree. I feel there are certain "styles" of emoji use. I don't know if I can explain it well. for example ive worked with people who are really good communicators who use things like sunglasses emoji or muscle emoji to make you actually feel good and keep concise clear communication. But people who make some big long official announcement then pepper it with random emojis to make it more "fun" can be extremely offputting. There are appropriate times to put them but you gotta anticipate how your audience is likely to feel and use them to show you're communicating in good faith, and if you're communicating in bad faith, just don't use them at all, we can all tell. Also the choice and timing of emojis can be good or bad. Honestly I think it literally comes down to a culture difference between hr types and engineers

stefandesu 3y ago

> Ever meet someone you didn’t like online, and realize they’re terrific in person? Online communication loses sooooo much in transit. This is so true. I have a good friend who is, in my opinion, really bad at this. It seems like he has a talent to make even little requests sound aggressive when using written communication. If I didn't know him so well, I would certainly interpret that as very rude, even though in RL he's not like that. Thinking about this, I realize I have something like this as well. With close friends, I can be VERY direct in a way that's both not completely serious, but still carries my true opinion. And I think I do this without thinking too much, it just comes out (although it doesn't seem to happen with people I'm not that close with, maybe because I'm more guarded and self-conscious during those conversations). Luckily my friends can appreciate this tendency even though it would come across as super rude if I did that to a stranger. (I guess I can't say if my friend's case above is actually very similar. Maybe he, too, uses different language with people he's less close with, trusting that his good friends know him well enough.)

Aachen 3y ago
> > Online communication loses sooooo much in transit. > This is so true. I have a good friend who is, in my opinion, really bad at this. I don't think it's true at all. Most people, I can perfectly well talk to online and can occasionally have an easier time talking to than in person. The person I'd classify as my best friend, for example, I literally speak to 1-2 times a year, the rest is text conversations (at least once a week we have a longer chat I'd estimate). But I also know some people that are or were close to me who are terrible at texting. I can't seem to help them improve, either. If I'd believe that not everything can be learned to some extent, I'd say this is apparently something innate. They don't come across rude at all, in my case, but just no conversation flow whatsoever. It's a bit comparable to doing one of those interviews where you have to coax every word out of the interviewee. (There is also the category of people that only ever text on a phone (slow) or just can't type at a conversational speed in the first place (50wpm/250cpm maybe? Just a guess), or have dyslexia and find reading more than half a phone screen's worth of text a significant hurdle. That's different and not what I mean about being bad at texting.) Maybe you and the author are not people who are good at texting, and that's why you feel it is 'so true' that a lot is lost in text messages? Or maybe most of my friends and I are the outliers, that honestly wouldn't surprise me either, but either way, this thing portrayed as universal truth is far from it

its_a_random_ac 3y ago

Pretty good overall, except for a nit pick: > Person B: “…. Hey, sorry to interrupt, but the story in my head is that you think owning that number is part of my job, and now you’re upset with me, or you think I’m incompetent at my job.” Depending on the exact phrasing and group and company dynamics, I'd be worried a bit by saying something like this because Person A might think I'm trying to push off work or responsibility for some metric that I'm tangentially responsible for.

blackkettle 3y ago
Same thing with “try to sound friendly.” Please and thank you are essential. But there are few things I hate more than cloying emails that start with “Hi!” (the exclamation point is the problem) and emoji are definitely worse. Being polite is professional and shows mutual respect; IMO it implies an intention to build trust. Affecting the trappings of friendliness or even loose intimacy in a professional setting or any setting where the relationship is in a rough spot has a strong chance of coming off as disingenuous.

brinebrine 3y ago

[flagged]

Apploks 3y ago

[dead]

Apploks 3y ago

[dead]

smackeyacky 3y ago

So many trusting people here. I am sorry but trusting shitheels is always a mistake. Always. Cut that relationsip off at the root and walk away. No second chances, ever.

cf141q5325 3y ago
>No second chances, ever. I find this to be an unrealistic standard. We all have lapses given the right moment (attention, tiredness, distraction). The question is do people comprehend the problem and are willing to work on it/ adjust for it? Differently put, the issue isnt just one of detecting problems but detecting those that cant be fixed/adjusted for. Which means putting resources into debugging how they appear for which reasons. Seeing as walking away is costly, that can often be a worth while investment. This is less about trusting and more about valuing functioning team relationships. Benefit of the doubt is a good strategy for team building, at the very least for information gathering.

PoignardAzur 3y ago

> Compose yourself. Firing off a reply while you are in fight-or-flight mode reliably* leads to unintentional escalations.* Oh, that's a pretty great insight! Or maybe not an insight, but it's putting clear words on a pretty important concept.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]