3 ms·

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 w

by 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!
- OJFord 3y ago
  I didn't misread it, at least I did read it as 'or', I just don't like that either. Yes I will reply Hey no sweat yeah just doing your job cheers whatever - but it's definitely making me feel even worse than I already was about whatever the negative thing was you had to say to me in the first place. The whole thing is just making it more about the counterparty, like they're the real victim for having unfortunately to give you this bad news - it's not their fault you did the bad thing after all! I'm afraid the Reddit parlance is lost on me, what's YTA & ESH?
  - tayo42 3y ago
    You're the asshole Everyone sucks here
    - tptacek 3y ago
      (There's a whole, very popular, subreddit dedicated to adjudicating "NTA", "ESH", "YTA", and "NAH" in a variety of user-submitted scenarios. It's a hoot.)
      - TylerE 3y ago
        It’s kinda tanked recently. Lots of very obviously made up stories.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Team members should reflect on interactions and give a quick sanity check to whether they may have come across rude, condescending, or aggrieved. And, if they have to ask, they should ask. You, as someone who shares the role of "team member", should be prepared to hear those check-ins in the spirit they're intended: as acknowledgements that everybody agrees that it's not OK to be rude or passive-aggressive. You don't have to absolve people: if they were rude, you can say "thanks, I did take that comment as a little hostile, and I'm glad it wasn't just me."
yieldcrv 3y ago
I met this toxic nutcase who had made up a concept like this, it essentially boiled down to “I’m going to tell you something thats unsubstantiated about you, which you’ll be obligated to be defensive about, so dont respond at all, and I dont want to talk about it” its that absolving of any responsibility that gets me
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
toast0 3y ago
I think I understand what you're saying. Pre-statement anxiety may be preferable to mid-statement anxiety though? And I think the intent is not to absolve responsibility, but to specifically acknowledge it. But it depends on how authentic it feels, which may be a problem if we're building trust. There's a difference between saying "I have something to say, but I don’t know how you’ll take it." and "I have something to say, but I don’t want you to be upset." ... where the first one is letting you know of potential trouble ahead, and the second one is demanding you react in a certain way.
- OJFord 3y ago
  Your comment makes me realise that better (than any of the examples) IMO would be to say I do know how you'll take it, you won't like it. You're not going to like this, but Bad news - 'I need to tell you something' [if you really must, but come on...] you're not going to like are all better than: I don't know how you're going to take this (do you know me/how crappy the news is or not?) and a million miles better than: I am anxious you are going to take what I have to say poorly [or similar] (making it about you.)

by OJFord 3y ago

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!

OJFord 3y ago
I didn't misread it, at least I did read it as 'or', I just don't like that either. Yes I will reply Hey no sweat yeah just doing your job cheers whatever - but it's definitely making me feel even worse than I already was about whatever the negative thing was you had to say to me in the first place. The whole thing is just making it more about the counterparty, like they're the real victim for having unfortunately to give you this bad news - it's not their fault you did the bad thing after all! I'm afraid the Reddit parlance is lost on me, what's YTA & ESH?
- tayo42 3y ago
  You're the asshole Everyone sucks here
  - tptacek 3y ago
    (There's a whole, very popular, subreddit dedicated to adjudicating "NTA", "ESH", "YTA", and "NAH" in a variety of user-submitted scenarios. It's a hoot.)
    - TylerE 3y ago
      It’s kinda tanked recently. Lots of very obviously made up stories.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Team members should reflect on interactions and give a quick sanity check to whether they may have come across rude, condescending, or aggrieved. And, if they have to ask, they should ask. You, as someone who shares the role of "team member", should be prepared to hear those check-ins in the spirit they're intended: as acknowledgements that everybody agrees that it's not OK to be rude or passive-aggressive. You don't have to absolve people: if they were rude, you can say "thanks, I did take that comment as a little hostile, and I'm glad it wasn't just me."

yieldcrv 3y ago

I met this toxic nutcase who had made up a concept like this, it essentially boiled down to “I’m going to tell you something thats unsubstantiated about you, which you’ll be obligated to be defensive about, so dont respond at all, and I dont want to talk about it” its that absolving of any responsibility that gets me

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

toast0 3y ago

I think I understand what you're saying. Pre-statement anxiety may be preferable to mid-statement anxiety though? And I think the intent is not to absolve responsibility, but to specifically acknowledge it. But it depends on how authentic it feels, which may be a problem if we're building trust. There's a difference between saying "I have something to say, but I don’t know how you’ll take it." and "I have something to say, but I don’t want you to be upset." ... where the first one is letting you know of potential trouble ahead, and the second one is demanding you react in a certain way.

OJFord 3y ago
Your comment makes me realise that better (than any of the examples) IMO would be to say I do know how you'll take it, you won't like it. You're not going to like this, but Bad news - 'I need to tell you something' [if you really must, but come on...] you're not going to like are all better than: I don't know how you're going to take this (do you know me/how crappy the news is or not?) and a million miles better than: I am anxious you are going to take what I have to say poorly [or similar] (making it about you.)